[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,
You didn't miss anything. Sorry for the delay, but I have been tied up
with other activities that have prevented me from addressing the issues
until now. I have uploaded a new .zip file that should contain all the
required changes that you described in this email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200904/msg00013.html
However, one thing I did not know how to do was put the link in the
document to the current and latest versions on the front page, which I
assume would be the address given to the doc after I uploaded it ? :).
Please let me know if there are any additional changes required, and
there should not be anymore long delays.
Thanks,
Rich
Mary McRae wrote:
> Just checking in to make sure I haven't missed a message ... any
> progress? If I missed it, my sincere apologies and please resend!
>
> thanks,
>
> 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
>
> Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:27 PM, 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 The Acknowledgements section seems very outdated (noting Hal and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]