Subject: RE: [security-services] AI-#0165: Proposed Errata Process for SAML 2.0
Eve, My intention here was to describe a process that began with submission to OASIS for standardization. The errata document then describes issues with the standard, not just the committee draft. This document then remains "live" until SAML 2.1 planning begins. One piece that I take from your comment is that we need such a document at a somewhat earlier stage. In other words, we should create an errata document at the moment we vote in a committee draft. This would also provide a somewhat formal process for tracking changes between initial and final committee draft. - prateek -----Original Message----- From: Scott Cantor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 10:37 PM To: 'Eve L. Maler'; email@example.com Subject: RE: [security-services] AI-#0165: Proposed Errata Process for SAML 2.0 > This sounds like a good plan. I just wanted to point out explicitly > that the errata process you propose is for "temporary" errata on the way > from Committee Draft to OASIS Standard, just as we did before. The > purpose would be to allow implementors to easily track minor changes and > cleanup that take place during Committee Draft stage as the result of > final review. It may be all we can get away with, but it's not what we really need, which is a way to normatively correct errors in the spec after the vote is done. Going through the whole process again is pretty heavy-weight for correcting mistakes, if the TC collectively agrees that it's a mistake. Pretending everything gets caught during the voting is pretty unrealistic as the spec gets bigger. -- Scott To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave _workgroup.php.