OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss-m message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: CSD01 and the conformance clauses


CSD01

Although they haven’t been officially posted yet, the CSD01 files are posted at http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss-m/wss/v1.1.1/csd01. You can download them as a ZIP package from http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss-m/wss/v1.1.1/csd01/wss-v1.1.1-csd01.zip. I reviewed each of the Word files, including a comparison of the printed CSDs with their respective WDs, and didn’t find any new issues.

 

Conformance clauses

When discussing the conformance statement with Monica we realized that we actually need one for each spec, not just one for the set. So I have put together proposed text for each doc along with the rationale. Please look at them and provide feedback on the list.

 

A couple of items to note:

1.       It seemed simpler and shorter to use the generic “this specification” instead of the full name of the document.

2.       In all cases I did not include the list of normative references as I assumed conformance to them would be implied by conformance to the indicated sections of the docs. Please let me know if you disagree.

 

Proposed text

SOAP Messaging Security

                This is the text proposed this week by Monica with “Web Services Security 1.1.1” replace by “this specification” -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2, 4, and 5 including conformance to the enabled capabilities in the two core schemas (secext and utility).

 

Keberos profile

                Derived from the introduction -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.

 

Username profile

                Derived from the introduction  -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3 and 4.

 

X.509 profile

                Derived from the introduction -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.

 

REL profile

                Derived from the sections titled “(Normative)” and made to be consistent with the other specs -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.

 

SwA profile

The introduction states that only sections 2.2 and 5 are normative. But we need to include section 2.1 as well because it includes the sections “Notational Conventions” (i.e., ref to RFC 2119) and “Namespaces”, and makes it consistent with the other specs. But this may not be appropriate because the 3rd sentence of the Introduction says “All other sections are non-normative”, and that includes 2.1. Since we already have to edit the document to add the conformance text, I propose that we also change the 2nd sentence of the Introduction from,

Note that sections 2.2 and 5 are normative.

                to,

Note that sections 2.1 and 5 are normative.

 

So the conformance text would be -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1 and 5.

 

SAML profile

The only mention of “normative”  is in the title of section 4 where it says “(non-normative)”.  But, if we follow the pattern of the other specs we should use -

An implementation conforms with this specification if it meets the requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.

 

We could add a statement to the Introduction section stating that those sections are normative. However, in the spirit of avoiding unnecessary changes, I recommend we not do it.

 

David



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]