OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [security-services] work product review

Hi Scott,

  I checked; Hal apparently forgot to include the schema link when he sent the PR submission back in March. 

  And it wasn't noted in the submission request (sorry, the highlighting is a result of the gmail search) - we can blame Hal ;):
fromHal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@oracle.com>
reply-to"hal.lockhart@oracle.com" <hal.lockhart@oracle.com>
toMary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
dateTue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM
subjectRequest for Public Review from SS TC

During the March 10, 2009 call, the SS TC voted the following six documents to public review.

  That said, as long as the schema was included in one way or another and isn't a new addition, I have no problem with it.  You might want to change the reference inside the schema so it points at the docs.oasis-open.or location rather than just a very user-unfriendly Kavi directory (non-members get a very different view of Kavi docs than members - no directories, and no apparent sequencing). 

  I strongly suggest that at least the Chairs/Secretaries pay attention to Public Review announcements on behalf of your TC - while I like to think I'm perfect, I know that mistakes happen. If we catch it right away we can rectify it. I try to always send a copy of the PR notice to the TC list as well as to the members and tc-announce lists to make sure it doesn't get lost in inboxes.

Thanks for helping getting this straightened out!


On Oct 27, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:

Mary McRae wrote on 2009-10-27:
   I don't think most TCs do this, but that's fine - although it
needs to reference the specific version of the spec it's associated
with (not the filename, but the reference).

I'll just label the reference then.

  On the other hand, no schema was previously identified; nor was it
included in the public review notice; nor does it live at the location
you've identified. Would the addition of a normative schema not be a
substantive change?

Then there was an oversight, because I uploaded a fresh copy of the schema
along with the documents. I do this for every transition stage, even if the
scheme hasn't changed, so that Kavi will display them together. You'll see
it grouped with both CD-01 (the public-reviewed version) and CD-02.

I have no idea what was or wasn't in the review notice. The schema is inside
the document as well as in its own file, like all the SAML documents have
done. The rules changed and the schema file can be the normative one now.

-- Scott

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]