[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] Re: WSSX Requests a public review please
Hi Mary,
Thanks for looking this over, and we understand that the rules are that
the document must conform to the guidelines. This particular document
has been thru some bruising battles, esp wrt to the line numbering on
the example messages and policies, which has put a lot of stress on the
word processing.
In any event, I will try to fix the problems you identified before the
ws-sx meeting next week. I checked on some of the points you made and
your observations agree with what I see using an earlier version of
Word. I looked back to see what caused the section numbering problem in
the introduction, and apparently I deleted some text near the start of
the Introduction a couple of revs ago, which appeared to be the cause of
this problem. It is always helpful for some fresh eyes to look over a
document, since when people get very close to things they are working on
sometimes they miss the obvious which apparently happened to me here.
If there are any other changes besides the ones you mentioned that you
might find from here on, please let me know and I will attempt to fix
them as well.
Thanks,
Rich
Mary McRae wrote:
> 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 The Acknowledgements section seems very outdated (noting Hal and Symon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
> email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> web: www.oasis-open.org
> 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:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]