[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] RE: WSSX TC Errata ready for public review
Hi Marc and Kelvin, Everything seems to be in order – the last bit though is that
I need PDFs and HTML versions of at least the stand-alone versions. Do you want
me to generate or can you supply? Thanks, Mary From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] The TC approved these updated drafts today: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200804/msg00045.html Note that I also updated the schema errata files just to get
consistency in the file names (no other changes). http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/28150/ws-trust-1.3-errata-cd-01.xsd
From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Thanks Mary, all of these comments have been addressed in the
drafts uploaded this morning. The one exception is number 5 for SC. That is listed under
Normative Errors and was determined by the TC to be a mistake. See issue ER017,
the proposal that was adopted covers this. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/issues/Issues.xml#ER017 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200712/msg00003.html Updated documents: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/28147/ws-trust-1.3-errata-cd-01.doc From: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae Hi Kelvin, Here’s the list – basically the entire set of documents
appear to be Editors Drafts and all need to be updated to note Committee Draft
status and the date of approval. Additionally, the redlined OS versions need to
clearly identify that this version is *not* the OASIS Standard but
instead OASIS Standard (incorporating Proposed Errata) – which will change to
incorporating Approved Errata post public review and TC affirmation. WS-SecureConversation 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show the date of
approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs) apparently reference Editors Draft (ed) –
not a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears to be an
oversight related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
The addition of a Conformance Section appears to result in a
substantive change. That is, if there were no conformance statements included
in the OASIS Standard, placing them in an errata places an additional burden on
use of the specification. 5.
The change to section 7.1 appears to result in a substantive
change (from SHOULD to SHOULD NOT) 6.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata –
Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) WS-SecurityPolicy 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show the date of
approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs) apparently reference Editors Draft (ed) –
not a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears to be an
oversight related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata –
Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) WS-Trust 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show the date of
approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs)apparently reference Editors Draft (ed) – not
a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears to be an oversight
related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
Under “3. Normative Errors” recommend placing the word “none”
(as in WS-SecurityPolicy) 5.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata –
Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) Mary From: Kelvin Lawrence
[mailto:klawrenc@us.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]