RE: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

Darren, I was doing a mea culpe.  You suggested the right thing.  There was
no misunderstanding for you to apologize for.

One of the things that the WG absolutely has to have to be successful, is
members having a clear willingness to publicly admit mistakes, new knowledge
etc.  I have attempted to be a "leader" in this area.  The WG also needs
editors/members accept decisions they disagree with.  Which I was also
expressing.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Platt [mailto:dplatt@securant.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:02 PM
> To: Evan Prodromou; Orchard, David
> Cc: security-use@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: 
> security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>