[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Potential Erratum -- NameIDMappingResponse schema
Thanks will pass this point on regarding process. Regarding Eric's point, that is up to the TC to decide. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote: >> "(gg) "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would > require >> a compliant application or implementation to be modified or >> rewritten in >> order to remain compliant." > > Yeah, I just checked it. > >> I'm not sure that the modification of schema as suggested would >> "require" >> compliant implementations to change. Indeed, I'm pretty sure none >> of the >> implementations that have passed through the testing program enforce > schema >> validation, and no one has complained about this particular issue. > > Possibly true. But you could argue that if the errata is addressing > a part > of the spec where conformant behavior was essentially impossible to > determine, that any change made would by definition be a change. > > Regardless, I think the definition is broken. Conformance criteria > should > reference errata if you're going to make errata serve its full > purpose. > > -- Scott > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]