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] | [List Home]

Subject: First draft of Core errata redlining doc

Okay, now that the email backlog is clearing...  Before the 
automatic notification hit the etherwaves, I alerted the people who 
reported the errata covered in this draft and asked them for a 
review.  I've attached that message below because it contains some 
questions that I want to open up to the whole TC.

Once I get feedback, I'll be in a better position to tackle the next 
few specs and then keep them all up to date.



Eve.Maler@Sun.COM wrote:
> The document named sstc-saml-core-errata-2.0-wd-00-diff.pdf has been
> submitted by Ms. Eve Maler to the OASIS Security Services (SAML) TC
> document repository.
> Document Description:
> The SAML V2.0 Assertions and Protocols specification defines the syntax and
> semantics for XML-encoded assertions about authentication, attributes, and
> authorization, and for the protocols that convey this information. This
> document, known as an errata composite, combines corrections to reported
> errata with the original specification text. By design, the corrections are
> limited to clarifications of ambiguous or conflicting specification text. 
> This document shows deletions from the original specification as
> struck-through text, and additions as blue underlined text. The "[Enn]" and
> "[PEnn]" designations embedded in the text refer to particular errata and
> their dispositions.
> Although this may look similar to the original OASIS Standard document
> produced by the Security Services Technical Committee and approved by the
> OASIS membership on 1 March 2005, this errata composite document is a
> non-normative working draft.  N.B.: The SAML V2.0 errata document and the
> entire set of errata composite documents, including this one, are not on an
> OASIS Standard track, but the text changes proposed here may ultimately
> find their way into a future standards-track SAML specification.
> This document includes errata corrections through revision 32 of the errata
> document, including E1, PE6, PE8, PE10, PE12, PE13, PE14, PE15, PE30, PE36,
> PE38, PE43, PE45, PE46, PE47.
> View Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/document.php?document_id=19563
> Download Document:  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/download.php/19563/sstc-saml-core-errata-2.0-wd-00-diff.pdf
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> -OASIS Open Administration

Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
Technology Director                           eve.maler @ sun.com
CTO Business Alliances group                Sun Microsystems, Inc.
--- Begin Message ---
Although you apparently won't see an automatically generated email 
about it for a while yet, I have just uploaded .odt and .pdf forms 
of "sstc-saml-core-errata-2.0-wd-00".  This is the first of a series 
of what I'm calling "errata composite" documents, the change-bar 
companions to Jahan's errata document.


This should reflect all Core-related edits contained in the 
SSTC-approved instructions in errata-32 (I haven't gotten to 
errata-33 yet, and note that some PEs ask for edits to more than one 
spec but I haven't gotten to that either).  Since you all have your 
names associated with one or more PEs whose edits are included here, 
I wanted to ask you to check that the edits were done correctly.

Let me also take this opportunity to ask for your feedback on the 
general form of the errata composite, before I go and do the same 
thing to Bindings, Profiles, etc.:

- Does the title page text sound about right?

- To make it easier to read, should I permanently "accept" the 
changes that appear on the title page?  (Once accepted, they can't 
go back to being struck through/underlined, and I'm not willing to 
remake those same edits every time I touch the doc just to get that 
effect!)  Note that I've turned a bit of the title page text (the 
word "original" and the phrase "revision 32" -- darn, I linked to 
rev 33 instead...) into hyperlinks, but you probably can't see that 
through all the blue underlining.

- Would it be useful for me to turn all the "[PEnn]" text sprinkled 
around the spec into hyperlinks to the latest version of the errata 
doc?  (I'd have to update them all every time I revised the 
composite, since we don't have a persistent URL for the "latest" 
errata doc.)

- Any other general comments?

Thanks much!

Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
Technology Director                           eve.maler @ sun.com
CTO Business Alliances group                Sun Microsystems, Inc.

--- End Message ---

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