[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- NameIDMappingResponse schema
> What are the constraints for producing one? Note the last paragraph from the TC Process, no more than once every 6 months. Note also (b) regarding no substantive change. <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.5> > 3.5 Approved Errata > > A TC may approve a set of Errata to an OASIS Standard as "Approved > Errata" to the corrected specification by: > > (a) Adopting the set of proposed corrections as a Committee Draft, > in the form of a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a > copy of the original specification text marked to incorporate the > proposed changes. > > (b) Confirming by Full Majority Vote that the proposed corrections > do not constitute a Substantive Change. > > (c) Submitting the proposed corrections for a 15-day public review, > and completing that review, pursuant to Section 3.4. > > (d) After the public review, confirming the proposed corrections as > Approved Errata by a Full Majority Vote. > > Once approved, the Approved Errata shall be with the specification > it corrects, in any publication of that specification. Disposition > of Approved Errata must be identified in the subsequent Public > Review Draft of the corrected specification. > > A TC may not adopt Approved Errata to an OASIS Standard more than > once in any consecutive six-month period. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 30, 2007, at 3:03 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote: >> I was going to suggest the same thing but was worried that folks >> would >> frown on the idea :) Really though, it may be the best option we >> have >> at this stage. > > I could also be wrong, BTW, about the errata rules. There used to > be no > process; now that there is one, what are the constraints for > producing one? > > I think it makes very little sense to say you can have official > errata but > they can't *really* change the spec. Typos happen, you can't expect > all of > them to be X number of words away from a MUST. > > From a conformance standpoint, it seems reasonable to me that any > statement > wrt conformance be applicable to the state of a spec and its errata > as of a > certain date. > > -- Scott > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]