[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss-m] questions about X.509 Certificate Token Profile (CSD)
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, David Turner wrote: > Robin, > > Which files should be used for the scrub? Wd02? Or the CSD01 docs you've been working on? > > David See below on alternatives for spec progression, but narrowly on "Which files should be used for the scrub?" -- the answer is "use WD02 documents" and when you next post them, call them WD03 [,WD04, WD05]... At this juncture you could consider an action or two that would arguably save everyone time and (wasted) energy. This advice represents my understanding of intent and allowed actions by TCs and TC Admin under the rules. Just for your consideration. - TC asks to cancel the public review based upon WD02 - TC asks to cancel the request for publication of WD02 documents at CD (CSD01) level - fix/scrub the WD02 material and reissue as WD03 (-04, -05) or whatever - TC votes to approve the new WDs as CDs (and as drafts for public review). Detail: Let's suppose the TC decides that some issues were overlooked in WD02, and that in the WD02 documents as approved, changes are required. Further, in light of these required changes, TC decides it does not make sense to proceed with the labor of public review of the WD02-level document(s) - collection and logging of comments, disposition log, etc. until the changes are made WD03+ The TC can vote to withdraw the WD02-level document from review [1]. The TC Process rule for "shall be withdrawn" is formulated in the context "during a review..." but my understanding is that a TC can make request to rescind/cancel the request for public review at *any* time from the ballot to approve for PR until the end of the public review period. A fortiori. If the documents for PR (e.g., CSPRD01) have not been published, and no announcement for public review made, then (as I understand TC Process) TC Admin may honor the TC's request, and stop all activity focused on the public review. The TC should minute the decision in the meeting minutes. I'm sure someone will send in the Process Police to arrest me if the text above contains errors WRT OASIS TC Process. - Robin [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2010-07-28.php#publicReview "If the TC decides by Full Majority Vote that changes are required, the draft shall be withdrawn from review after the Chair informs the TC Administrator" > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:22 AM > To: David Turner > Cc: Robin Cover; WSS-M TC List > Subject: RE: [wss-m] questions about X.509 Certificate Token Profile (CSD) > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, David Turner wrote: > >> Robin, >> >> Hmm, (at least) some of these may be artifacts from multiple doc format conversions. I'm willing to scrub the files if it will help. Let me know. >> >> David > > Not sure about the origin. The motivation for my initial question was to ensure that the TC knows it will take at least a WD03 and CSD02 to get these removed. Changes are not allowed in the WD02 documents approved at CD level, per the TC process for allowed changes [1]. > > It's common that link errors appear in initial WDs; the public reviews sometimes flush these out, but sometimes not. It would be a good idea IMO to assign someone to link-checking as a purely editorial task, independent of content changes. > > Best wishes, > > - Robin > > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2010-07-28.php#quality-allowedChanges > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:36 AM >> To: David Turner >> Cc: Robin Cover; WSS-M TC List >> Subject: RE: [wss-m] questions about X.509 Certificate Token Profile >> (CSD) >> >> Many thanks, Dave. Narrowly on two of the items >> >> #3 > Can you list them? >> >> I don't have a complete list, but there are quite a few, Examples: >> >> x509: >> line 101 [WS-Security] >> >> SwA: >> line 106 RFC2396 >> line 101 SECGLO >> >> SOAPMessageSec: >> line 126 [URI] >> line 368 Xpath >> >> >> #5 I'll plan to say "supersedes" per your vote, but the TC can change >> its mind most anytime >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> - Robin >> >> Robin Cover >> Interim TC Administrator >> OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML >> Daily Newslink >> Email: robin@oasis-open.org >> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover >> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ >> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html >> Tel: +1 972-296-1783 >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Turner wrote: >> >>> 1. Which URI should be used for the "Previous Version" >>> specification? >>> >>>>> I would say the OS+errata version, unless that is not considered and official version. In which case it should be the previous OS. >>> >>> 2. Who should be listed on the cover page as Editors? >>>>> For ALL specs, it should be the list of editors from the latest OS plus "Carlo Milono, Tibco". >>> >>> 3. Which URIs should be listed on the cover page for the >>> Declared XML Namespace(s)? >>> >>>>> The X.509 document does not declare any NEW namespaces. Those listed on lines 78-84 (of wd02) are used in this spec but defined in other documents. The URI listed at line 87 is not a namespace URI. Rather, it is the base string used for a set of values called Token Types, listed in the table at line 90 and defined later in the document. That it resembles any URL, living or dead, is just a coincidence. In fact, the TC made the decision to make sure none of those strings had associated links and to remove any links were there. >>> >>> 4. For clarification on spec development: is the TC planning to release >>> at least CSD02 and CSPRD02 (after the CSPRD01 public review)? I ask >>> because the WD02 document balloted for approval as CSD01 has a number >>> of link errors which I imagine would be candidates for correction in >>> CSD02. >>>>> I assume we would want to fix the link errors. Can you list them? >>> >>> 5. [snip] For "Related work:" in connection with this spec, I would plan to say it supersedes the OS and OS Errata, while being a part of the multi-part "Web Services Security" spec which includes six other parts. >>>>> Yes. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org] >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:43 PM >>> To: WSS-M TC List >>> Cc: Robin Cover >>> Subject: [wss-m] questions about X.509 Certificate Token Profile >>> (CSD) >>> >>> The following questions arose in the process of creating an appropriate cover page for the X.509 Certificate Token Profile (CSD). >>> >>> 1. Which URI should be used for the "Previous Version" >>> specification? Options: >>> >>> a) N/A [consider 1.1.1 CSD01 the first, with no "Previous"] >>> b) http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/v1.1/wss-v1.1-spec-pr-RELTokenProfile.htm >>> [the v1.1 OS] >>> c) http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/v1.1/wss-v1.1-spec-errata-os-x509TokenProfile.doc >>> [the Errata spec] >>> >>> 2. Who should be listed on the cover page as Editors? >>> >>> The Work Product Registration for this spec lists five names: >>> >>> Anthony Nadalin, IBM >>> Chris Kaler, Microsoft >>> Ronald Monzillo, Sun >>> Phillip Hallam-Baker, Verisign >>> Michael McIntosh >>> See: >>> http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-295 >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-m/201011/msg00008.html >>> >>> But the WD02 document (.doc) Custom Properties lists only two: >>> Anthony Nadalin, IBM >>> Michael McIntosh >>> >>> And the Version 1.1 OS listed as Editors these four: >>> Anthony Nadalin, IBM >>> Chris Kaler, Microsoft >>> Ronald Monzillo, Sun >>> Phillip Hallam-Baker, Verisign >>> >>> >>> 3. Which URIs should be listed on the cover page for the >>> Declared XML Namespace(s)? >>> >>> The Work Product Registration for this spec lists five, with one apparent duplication: >>> >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#PKCS7 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#X509v3 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#X509SubjectKeyIdentifier >>> See: >>> http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN-295 >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-m/201011/msg00008.html >>> >>> But the WD02 document (.doc) Custom Properties lists only: >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0 >>> >>> Inspection of the WD02 document "Section 2.2 Namespaces" reveals nine URIs that might be candidates for identifying XML namespace names, and of those, at least two ending in ".xsd" seem to be used in the XML schemas as XML namespace names: >>> >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message- >>> s >>> ecurity-1.0#Base64Binary >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message- >>> s >>> ecurity-1.0#STR-Transform >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-se >>> c >>> ext-1.0.xsd >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-ut >>> i >>> lity-1.0.xsd >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#PKCS7 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#X509SubjectKeyIdentifier >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-pr >>> o >>> file-1.0#X509v3 >>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.1.xsd >>> >>> 4. For clarification on spec development: is the TC planning to release >>> at least CSD02 and CSPRD02 (after the CSPRD01 public review)? I ask >>> because the WD02 document balloted for approval as CSD01 has a number >>> of link errors which I imagine would be candidates for correction in >>> CSD02. >>> >>> 5. In answers to any of the above, if principled grounds for the decision can be explained, it may obviate the need to ask similar questions for the other six WD02 specs, should those questions arise in my work. >>> >>> The method of communication specification metadata to TC Admin (in the design of October 2010) was that TCs would religiously edit the Custom Property values. I'm not sure if that works in all cases, so I'm testing the theory. Feedback would be welcome on that point. >>> In theory: the Work Product Registration (template) sets out the initial values, and the TC Editors use the Custom Property values in successive Working Drafts to make any metadata updates. >>> >>> For "Related work:" in connection with this spec, I would plan to say it supersedes the OS and OS Errata, while being a part of the multi-part "Web Services Security" spec which includes six other parts. >>> >>> Thanks -rcc >>> >>> Robin Cover >>> Interim TC Administrator >>> OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML >>> Daily Newslink >>> Email: robin@oasis-open.org >>> Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#cover >>> Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ >>> Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html >>> Tel: +1 972-296-1783 >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.ph >>> p >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]