Re: [security-services] RE: Experiment in "redline" version of core spec

[Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>]

+1

By the way, a revision to the TC process to allow approval of Errata,  
including a short public review, should make it possible to have an  
official errata in the near future.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Aug 7, 2006, at 4:27 PM, ext Eve L. Maler wrote:

> Scott Cantor wrote:
>>> - Does the title page text sound about right?
>> It's a little overly explicit for my taste. It reads so loose that  
>> people
>> would look at it and think "well, it's not real yet, so I can  
>> ignore it".
>
> Instead of this weasel-wording...
>
> "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."
>
> ...wow about this less cautious text?
>
> "This errata composite document is a working draft based on the  
> original OASIS Standard document produced by the Security Services  
> Technical Committee and approved by the OASIS membership on 1 March  
> 2005.  While the errata corrections appearing here are non- 
> normative, they reflect the consensus of the TC about how to  
> interpret the specification and are likely to be incorporated into  
> any future standards-track revision of the SAML specification."
>
>> Somebody needs to propose an errata process to OASIS.
>
> I'll let Jeff take that on. :-)
>
>>> - To make it easier to read, should I permanently "accept" the  
>>> changes that appear on the title page?
>> I would.
>
> If anyone disagrees let me know.
>
>>> - 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.)
>> I don't think it's worth doing unless they're persistent and no  
>> work to
>> maintain.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Is there a rule that says TC documents have to be kept in Kavi?  
>> You can
>> probably tell where I'm headed with that...
>
> Hmm, since they're non-normative... :-)
>
> 	Eve
> -- 
> Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
> Technology Director                           eve.maler @ sun.com
> CTO Business Alliances group                Sun Microsystems, Inc.