Re: Minutes from 10 April meeting

[Jeff Hodges <jhodges@oblix.com>]

Eve.Maler@Sun.COM wrote:
> 
> EVERYONE: Please note ACTION items below.  Some are due IMMEDIATELY!

apologies, I unfortunately had to juggle some other stuff after our conn call
that took longer than I expected. 


> Bob will need to do the following things to the SAML draft:
> 
> - Remove the requirements and use cases chapter and the
>   issues list appendix

...from draft-sstc-saml-01.pdf

A question this raises is whether draft-sstc-saml-01 is actually going to be
split into three docs rather than two (see below).


> - Replace the old glossary with Jeff's new glossary

The version to use is (one of, at BobB's descretion)..

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-glossary-00.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-glossary-00.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-glossary-00.pdf


> - Replace the core assertions section with the new material

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-core-05.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-core-05.pdf

Note also that the current version of the "Domain model" doc is (now, apologies
for latency) here..

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-use-domain-03.doc
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-use-domain-03.pdf



> - Make any changes to the outline authorized by the decisions
>   taken at F2F #1
> 
> ACTION: Eve to check with Tim (copying security-leaders) on
> whether the Protocols section has also changed and what
> precisely among the currently available draft should be put in.
> 
> ACTION: Jeff to respond to this thread suggesting the proper
> file names for the requirements document and SAML draft

I'm assuming that BobB will be adding a fair amount of value-add front (& back?)
material to the UC&R docs (reqs doc (sometimes called "strawman") and issues
doc), and hence it's worthwhile to issue the so-enhanced docs as different docs
(from the ones produced by UC&R) with different filenames. Hence I suggest that
draft-sstc-saml-01 should "logically" become..

  draft-sstc-saml-spec-00
  draft-sstc-saml-reqs-00
  draft-sstc-saml-reqs-issues-00

Now, I'm (strongly) suggesting here that we follow the IETF process of "anytime
a brand-new internet-draft *filename* is created, it starts version numbering at
-00, no matter how 'new' or 'old' it's content might be".

If a lot of folks can't live with that, then I suggest we set the version
numbers at -02. 

thanks,

JeffH