Use Cases and Requirements -- Strawman Draft 2

[Evan Prodromou <evan@outlook.net>]

Attached is a copy of the 2nd straw man version of the use cases and
requirements document. It has some fairly significant changes
including the following:

	* Added set of high-level use cases to capture the
	  similarities between many of the scenarios. Maintained a
	  group of detailed use-case scenarios.

        * Changed diagrams of detailed use case scenarios to use
	  interaction diagrams instead of use case diagrams.

        * Added a description of each use-case scenario and list of
          requirements flowing from the scenario.

        * Added draft glossary (as link). Thanks, Jeff!

	* Added issues list (as link). Collected from Darren's
          high-level list and re-formatted. As many issues as have
          come up on 

	* Gave requirements labelled names for easier
          reference.

	* Incorporated and merged requirements list from Core
	  Assertions subcommittee of Oasis Security Services
	  TC (by Philip Hallam-Baker).

        * Corrected various editorial mistakes.

By far, the most text and time have been put into the issues list, and
I encourage people -- no, I BESEECH people B-) -- to check that list
to make sure that 1) issues they have brought up have been addressed
and 2) that the characterization of issues is clear, fair, and
accurate.

If I was to characterize the lifecycle of our output as a
subcommittee, I'd say that we began with an outline and generated a
large number of issues. I think that our next step, before the first
draft that will go to the main TC, is to resolve these issues and
squeeze them back into the main document, as best as possible.

We've talked a bit about how to resolve issues on the list. One part
is breaking up the issues into digestible chunks -- what the issues
list is about -- and posting one email per issue to the list, for
response.

I think the next part we have to decide is how to -resolve-
issues. Perhaps, using Robert's Rules, at some point in the discussion
someone can make a motion that we vote on one or more of the potential
resolutions for the issue, and we can use the evite voting system to
close the items. Another possibility is that someone move that we have
consensus and that we resolve the issue without a vote, unless there's
an objection. (Crumb, looks like I need to read R's R again).

Anyhow, I plan on posting emails for each issue this weekend, to meet
the first requirement. I guess we can talk about resolution at the
next concall.

~ESP

a2mluc-strawman-2.zip