OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Minutes of 6 Feb Meeting

I have some corrections to the minutes, all written in 3rd party for easy
cut and paste :-)

> Protocols(Tim Moses):
> Similar situation to Core Assertions; have combined two inputs but it
> clashed with current work in Use Cases. Have since held off 
> until Use Cases
> have started to solidify. Hopefully second straw man from UC 
> will provide a
> basis for discussion. Reason for early distribution of 
> protocol doc is to
> see if there are any substantial, early issues.

David Orchard objected to the Protocols SWG(sub working group) not including
some of the inputs before the TC.  In particular, that the ITML session
management proposal was not included in the session management portion of
the protocols subgroup, nor had the protocols WG reviewed the ITML session
management submission.  

David Orchard opined that when editors are directed to produce first drafts
of appropriate material based upon existing material, the editor(s) should
do their best to combine the complete set of works before them and not pick
from a subset.  

Bob (Morgan?) pointed out that editors act upon instructions given them and
that the WG owns the technical content.   

> SIDE DISCUSSION: Status of submissions and other base proposals.
> It was not clear if the call for submissions was closed. It 
> was pointed out
> that some believed the submissions were possible up to the 
> face-to-face in
> March.
> Clarification reached during meeting:  processing of 
> materials remains a
> working group decision, but that in general new submissions 
> can be brought
> to the working groups until March face-to-face meeting.

David Orchard believe that the actual decision was that any submissions can
be brought to the WG before the f2f.  Processing of new materials does not
remain a WG decision as the WG has made a decision.   Quoth he from the Jan
9 2001 minutes, "The work will take the S2ML specification and the intended
submission of AuthXML, along with any other relevant and timely submissions,
into consideration."

Dave Orchard
XML Architect
Jamcracker Inc.,    19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408.864.5118     m: 604.908.8425    f: 408.725.4310

Named to Red Herring's list of 100 Most Important Companies:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC