Re: new SSTC web page (was: Re: Fwd: Prettified version of model)

[Jeff Hodges <jhodges@oblix.com>]

Eve.Maler@Sun.COM wrote:
> 
> BTW, I just put up a whole new TC page at:
> 
>   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/index.shtml
> 
> Let me know what you think!  (I think it's pretty spiff, if I do say so
> myself. :-)

It does look pretty good, thanks.

Some initial comments/thoughts...

1. Are you signing up to exclusively maintain that page? If not, then we should
perhaps edit it to say to send mail to security-editors for
updates/feedback/etc (especially because you late cite me as the "website
maintainer" in the "membership" section), rather than to Eve.Maler. Make sense?
Perhaps you should subscribe to security-editors?

2. in the "index line" under the title "XML-Based Security Services TC", I
suggest either adding a link entitled "documents" (which points to the /docs
directory), or modifying the "deliverables" item to be something like
"deliverables/documents", or simply changing the "deliverables" item to be
simply "documents". 

3. in the presently entitled "deliverables" section..

  3a. I suggest changing..


    ..always go to the documents area index page.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                               [link]

  ..to be..


    ..always go directly to the SSTC document repository.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                          [link]


  3b. I suggest adding the RFCs pointed to by Steve Farrell in this msg..

    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services/200103/msg00016.html

  ..to the list of "Submissions and position papers". 

  Steve didn't include RFC 2903 in his list, and I feel he should've, so I'd
  suggest including it (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2903.txt).

  I mentioned this set of RFCs to Tim Moses on the -protocol group concall and
  he indicated he'd take a look at 'em. I intend to point to them in some 
  upcoming contributions of mine in the various threads on the various lists. 


4. how come not everybody mentioned has a "mailto:" link? Just time
constraints?

thanks again for cranking that out, it's a huge improvement. 

JeffH