Re: [security-services] FW: Guidelines on Conformance Clauses

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

Hi Ari,

Your interpretation of "not both" is what I had in mind, but perhaps
that language is confusing.  Is the following paragraph better?

An implementation is a conforming Basic Mode X.509 Attribute Requester
if the implementation conforms to the Basic Mode profile in section 3.
An implementation is a conforming Encrypted Mode X.509 Attribute
Requester if the implementation conforms to the Encrypted Mode profile
in section 4. An implementation shall be a conforming Basic Mode X.509
Attribute Requester, a conforming Encrypted Mode X.509 Attribute
Requester, or both.  In the latter case, the implementation conforms
to both the Basic Mode profile and the Encrypted Mode profile in
sections 3 and 4, respectively.

Can/should the last sentence be omitted?

Ari, feel free to rewrite the paragraph to your way of thinking so we
can compare notes.

Thanks,
Tom

On 7/31/07, ARI.KERMAIER@oracle.com <ARI.KERMAIER@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "not both"? Is a product that can be configured for either mode considered to be one or the other implementation depeding on how it's configured at any given time?
>
> ::Ari
>
> --- Original Message ---
> > To see if I'm on the right track, would the following conformance
> > section section suffice for the Attribute Sharing Profile?
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/download.php/24299/sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-cd-03.pdf
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Implementation Conformance
> >
> > An implementation is a conforming Basic Mode Attribute Requester
> > if
> > the implementation meets the conditions in section 3. An
> > implementation is a conforming Encrypted Mode Attribute Requester
> > if
> > the implementation meets the conditions in section 4. An
> > implementation shall be a conforming Basic Mode Attribute
> > Requester or
> > a conforming Encrypted Mode Attribute Requester (but not both).
> > An
> > implementation that is a conforming Encrypted Mode Attribute
> > Requester
> > necessarily meets the requirements of a conforming Basic Mode
> > Attribute Requester since the former is an extension of the
> > latter.
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 7/17/07, Hal Lockhart <hlockhar@bea.com> wrote:
> > > Here are two documents intended to provide guidance on the Conformance
> > > Section now required.
> > >
> > > If your time is limited, the second one (.doc format) provides the more
> > > specific advice on what is needed.
> > >
> > > Hal
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:20 PM
> > > To: '=drummond.reed'
> > > Cc: 'Gabe Wachob'; 'Laurie Rae'
> > > Subject: RE: [tc-editors] TC Process Specification Requirements notice
> > >
> > > Hi Drummond,
> > >
> > >   I'm attaching a draft of some guidelines that are currently in the
> > > works as well as a document produced by a the
> > > Conformance TC.
> > >
> > >   The Conformance Section should be a new section placed as the last
> > > section in the document (before any appendices).
> > >
> > >   Let me know if you have more questions.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: =drummond.reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:13 PM
> > > > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > > > Cc: 'Gabe Wachob'; 'Laurie Rae'
> > > > Subject: RE: [tc-editors] TC Process Specification Requirements notice
> > > >
> > > > Mary,
> > > >
> > > > Can you point us (the XRI TC) at any documentation about the
> > > > conformance clause requirement? We're about to produce XRI Resolution
> > > > 2.0 Committee Draft 02 and it will be subject to this requirement, so
> > > > we really need to understand this new requirement and how to conform
> > > > to it (sic ;-)
> > > >
> > > > The more details/examples you can provide, the better, as within a
> > > > week or two we'll be ready to add these conformance requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > =Drummond
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:48 PM
> > > > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; tc-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [tc-editors] TC Process Specification Requirements notice
> > > >
> > > > To all TC Chairs and Editors:
> > > >
> > > > On 22 June the OASIS Board of Directors approved an immediate change
> > > > to Section 2.18 of the TC Process Policy [1] regarding the requirement
> > >
> > > > for XHTML. This requirement has been relaxed to once again permit
> > > > submission of HTML or XHTML.
> > > > Please note that while OpenOffice and other Open Document Format
> > > > implementations can save as valid XHTML, the output is not styled
> > > > properly and therefore not acceptable. Microsoft Office does not have
> > > > an XHTML export at this time. Any TCs authoring in DITA or DocBook
> > > > should continue to produce valid (and
> > > > properly-formatted) XHTML, as should any TCs authoring directly in
> > > > XHTML.
> > > >
> > > > Also, please remember that the conformance clause requirement went
> > > > into effect 1 June. All documents submitted for Public Review or
> > > > Committee Specification Ballot must have a separate Conformance Clause
> > >
> > > > section and all Statements of Use must refer to that section.
> > > >
> > > > "(dd) "Statement of Use", with respect to a specification, is a
> > > > written statement by an OASIS Organizational Member stating that it is
> > >
> > > > successfully using or implementing that specification in accordance
> > > > with the conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, and stating
> > > > whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent
> > > > implementations. "
> > > >
> > > > "A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public Review
> > > > Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a
> > > > separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses, to
> > > > which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to
> > > > claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion
> > > > thereof)."
> > > >
> > > > As always, please feel free to contact me (or your TC Staff
> > > > Contact) with any questions or requests for assistance.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > > Mary P McRae
> > > > Manager of TC Administration, OASIS
> > > > email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > > > web: www.oasis-open.org
> > > > phone: 603.232.9090
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.18
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tc-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tc-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>