[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions
> OD> I was instructed to keep the numbering and use cases > OD> roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session. I didn't agree > OD> at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission. > > OK, I guess we might have some miscommunication. I think so as well. My only intention was to make sure that issue numbers stayed consistent throughout the process so people could refer to them. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Darren > -----Original Message----- > From: Evan Prodromou > [mailto:evan@priss.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us]On > Behalf Of Evan Prodromou > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:18 PM > To: Orchard, David > Cc: security-use@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions > > > >>>>> "OD" == Orchard, David <dorchard@jamcracker.com> writes: > > OD> I'm baffled. I have always wanted explicit scenarios showing > OD> differences between logout and timeout. I originally wanted > OD> to make the scenarios explicit to show logout/timeout > OD> separately (and votable separately), hence my first > OD> submission. > > Wow. Well, I think I must have completely misread you, because to my > mind this: > > "[DavidO: Isn't this covered in UC-3-1? I've kept here for > backwards compatibility]" > > ...means that the issue is to be voted on as a single entity, and that > the issue as stated is vestigial. > > I'm confused why you didn't add separate scenarios for logout and > timeout under, say, UC-3-3 and UC-3-5? > > [Note that I'm kicking myself for not getting to a Windows machine and > printing out your issues before late last week. I'm definitely the pot > calling the kettle black as far as editing is involved. B-)] > > OD> I was instructed to keep the numbering and use cases > OD> roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session. I didn't agree > OD> at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission. > > OK, I guess we might have some miscommunication. I think issue group > champions should have every right to re-write the issues, within the > realm of good judgement. > > That said, it's probably ill-advised to re-number issues > willy-nilly. Like, for example, re-using the same number for a > completely separate issue, or making up a new naming or numbering > scheme, etc. > > *I* find issues that have been refined to the point where they clearly > delineate changes to the document ("Add the following requirement: > [R-Blah]" "Add the following use case scenario:") to be the most > useful. I think of them as patches that we either apply or not. > > OD> It now looks like a good thing because some people appear to > OD> want session mgmt, but not logout and/or timeout. This gives > OD> us a mechanism to approve the topic, and then dive into the > OD> details of what these mean. > > I find that it means we're going to be going through a whole separate > round of issues, which kind of seems pointless. > > ~ESP > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC