Re: Use case doc handoff

[George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com]

My opinion is that the use case and requirements group continues to own and
update this
document section until the full group votes to accept it as a finished part
of the overall
specification.

--bob

Bob Blakley
Chief Scientist
Enterprise Solutions Unit
Tivoli Systems, Inc. (an IBM Company)


"Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com> on 02/22/2001 04:26:46 PM

To:   Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com>
cc:   security-leaders@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: Use case doc handoff



At 11:38 AM 2/22/01 -0800, Darren Platt wrote:
>How will we determine the point where the use case and requirements
subgroup
>turns over its doc to the other groups?  There are some who feel the use
>case subgroup's job is done at some point once the other groups have begun
>working.  There are others who feel there is some kind of maintenance mode
>that follows.    Others still think it should stay active.

I've been assuming that our TC will definitely publish a requirements
document (or a requirements section of the SAML spec?), which means that
there will be a document that needs care and feeding over time.  In keeping
with Bob B.'s suggestion about subgroups "owning" pieces of documents, I
think it would be a good idea to keep the use-case group "on reserve" to
assess any comments that come in on the requirements document/section, and
to attempt to do the traceability I described on the phone.  The workload
probably won't be zero, nor will it be as heavy as the last few weeks have
been.

On the idea of a requirements document vs. requirements section, I prefer
the former because:

- Requirements and use cases are non-normative, and it's better not to
   fill a spec with non-normative stuff when you can just point to it

- It allows us to publish a relatively "whole" work product as soon as
   possible to the public, so we can get feedback and keep the momentum
   going

Does all this sound sensible, or am I missing something big?

>On a related note, I think at one point I suggested to the use case
mailing
>list that our issue resolution process might be valuable to the TC at
large
>after straw man 3 and/or the face to face.  I want to make sure that I was
>clear that my thought here was that Eve would take over the process at
some
>point - whenever the TC as a whole deemed the group's work to be 'ready'
(my
>first question, above) - as it could be effectively controlling the scope
of
>our work.  I'd imagine that the issues that come up will be more and more
>implemenation specific (as opposed to requirement-oriented) as well.  I'd
>imagine a continuum of issues coming up, really, gradually moving from
>requirements to implementation details.  So I thought that maybe if we had
a
>requirements issue resolution process with a little forward inertia, maybe
>it would save us some time as we widen the audience.

If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking whether the process you've
developed for handling use-case issues could be suitable for other issues
that come up on other SAML sections.  I'm pretty sure that it could.  Each
subgroup will be a natural home for collecting issues on the spec section
they own, but I agree that for a decision on an issue to be "official" it
needs to be made by the TC as a whole.

If instead you're asking about the proper disposition of the *actual
issues* you've come up with, I'm thinking that if we don't get through all
the use cases/requirements/issues emanating from your subgroup on 2 March,
we should make the next bunch of meetings be an extension of the F2F, where
we continue to hear your subgroup's recommendations and consider them as a
series of motions.

Hope this helps,

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com