Hi Rich,
There's still a few problems - firstly, the cover page isn't right with regard to placement of date and stage, and all 3 document formats must be listed and hypertext linked - it appears that all the hypertext links that should be on the cover page are non-existent; not sure how they disappeared.
The notices section uses a copyright of 1993-2007; you likely want to update this to just 2009 unless this document was published in the past?
All references must be declared as either normative or non-normative in section 1; yet there is a list of references in section 3 (must be moved and properly classified)
Section 1 Introduction seems to have completely lost its formatting (major heading style and designation); 2nd and 3rd-level heads intermittently seem to be causing page breaks. I've just installed Office 2007 SP2 so I don't know if I'm seeing something different than you are - it's certainly possible!
The Acknowledgements section seems very outdated (noting Hal and Symon from BEA for instance) and should be checked for accuracy.
I could fix it, but I don't want to mess with the references.
Sorry for not looking more closely the first time around.
Regards,
Mary
Mary P McRae Director, Standards Development Technical Committee Administrator OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society twitter: fiberartisan #oasisopen phone: 1.603.232.9090
On Apr 27, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Rich.Levinson wrote: Hi Mary, We may have had a coordination issue closing the loop on this. In any event, the current state is that the document has been updated to include a conformance section indicating that there are no conformance requirements, along with some explanatory text: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=32098&wg_abbrev=ws-sx The above link is to the details page, which describes at the bottom that the doc is updated with said conformance section plus the fact that no "red-lining" remains. In addition, we are suggesting that the text below from the document abstract might be used as the "paragraph to be included with the review note" (possibly indicating that the refs in the para may be followed by going to the document abstract within the doc). Please let me (us) know if there is anything else needed to move this ahead. Thanks, Rich Suggested text for "paragraph to be included with the review note": "This document contains examples of how to set up WS-SecurityPolicy [WSSP] policies for a variety of common token types that are described in WS-Security 1.0 [WSS10] and WS-Security 1.1 [WSS11] token profiles [WSSTC]. Particular attention is focused on the different "security bindings" (defined in [WSSP]) within the example policies. Actual messages that have been documented in WS-Security TC [WSSTC]and other WS-Security-based Interops [WSSINTEROPS, WSSXINTEROPS, OTHERINTEROPS] that conform to some of the example policies are referenced when appropriate. The purpose of this document is to give examples of how policies may be defined for several existing use cases that have been part of the WS-Security Interops that have been conducted (see References section for Interop documents [INTEROPS]). In addition, some example use cases have been included which show some variations from the WS-Security Interop use cases in order to demonstrate how different options and security bindings impact the structure of the policies." Mary McRae wrote: 526CE9A7-76EB-46D8-82CF-36201190E23D@oasis-open.org" type="cite">Hi Kelvin, No, there's no conformance section (should be Section 4). It's perfectly acceptable to write a conformance section indicating that there are no conformance requirements, or that one should refer to the actual spec for conformance requirements, as appropriate. Thanks! Mary Mary P McRae Director, Technical Committee Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org web: www.oasis-open.org twitter: fiberartisan phone: 1.603.232.9090 On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote: Hi Mary, thanks for the fast response. What the TC would like to do is get this work as far as CS and leave it there. So I believe therefore we need the 60 day review. Sorry that I was not clearer on that. I thought we had added the conformance section, if we are missing it (and need it) we'll take that to-do. We (the TC) can try and quickly work up a paragraph of explanatory text for you . Cheers Kelvin From: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com> To: Kelvin Lawrence/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Cc: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org Date: 04/13/2009 01:42 PM Subject: Re: WSSX Requests a public review please Thanks Kelvin. Is this a 60-day review and something that will be advancing to CS status or just something that will stay at CD (which means you don't need conformance section and you have an arbitrary review time)? Would you like to write a paragraph to be included in the review note? Mary On Apr 13, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote: Hi Mary, The WSSX TC has recently approved an examples document and set of sample files as a committee draft and would like a public review conducted to give the OASIS members a chance to give their feedback. We felt that these documents would help others with better understanding our normative specs that are already OASIS Standards. The ZIP file containing the documents is at [1]. Please let me know if you need anything else from us. The meeting where we decided to ask for a review is minuted at [2] [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31894/WS-SX-ExamplesDocAndInteropMessages-cd-01.zip [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200903/msg00006.html Cheers and thanks in advance, Kelvin WSSX TC co-Chair
|