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

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

Breaking it up into multiple paragraphs helps, but there still seems
to be some confusion in the first sentence.  As Ari pointed out, an
implementation may conform to one or both modes.  My first attempt,
and the rewrite below, seem to suggest otherwise.

On the other hand, Encrypted Mode is an extension of Basic Mode (see
line 336 of CD-03) so I don't see how it's possible to support
Encrypted Mode without supporting Basic Mode in some sense.  That's
why my initial attempt called out support for one or the other modes
(but not both).

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security/download.php/24299/sstc-saml-x509-authn-attrib-profile-cd-03.pdf

The Deployment Profiles for X.509 Subjects has exactly the same issue,
by the way.

Tom

On 7/31/07, Hal Lockhart <hlockhar@bea.com> wrote:
> I think the content is exactly what is needed. I wonder if there is a
> less confusing way to state it. Perhaps:
>
> -----------
> An implementation of this specification MUST conform to either one of
> two modes of operation: Basic Mode Attribute Requester or Encrypted Mode
> Attribute Requester. An Encrypted Mode Attribute Requester includes a
> superset of the functionality of a Basic Mode Attribute Requester.
>
> A Basic Mode Attribute Requester MUST conform to the normative
> statements in Section 3.
>
> A Encrypted Mode Attribute Requester MUST conform to the normative
> statements in Section 4, which includes references to normative portions
> of Section 3.
> ----------
>
> Hal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Scavo [mailto:trscavo@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:50 AM
> > To: Hal Lockhart
> > Cc: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [security-services] FW: Guidelines on Conformance Clauses
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>