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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss message

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


Subject: Re: [wss] OASIS submission ballot invalid? Re: [wss] WSS TC ballots - second reminder


Frederick,

As mentioned by others, we likely each have a different perspective as to
what would qualify as substantive. In any event there was a lot of good
work done during the review,  and many changes were made to the spec.
I will list some of the ones that I think qualify as substantive.

Our resolution to issue 137, resulted in a change to the required 
ordering of create, nonce,
and password to create a password digest.

We had numerous discussions regarding MustUnderstand (inspired by issue 190)
which resulted in a change in required semantics.

Jerry has already mentioned the QNAME to URI change resulting from our 
resolution
of issue 196

In response to issue 240, we added a <wsse:TransformParameters> element 
to our
schema for use with the STR-deferencing transform is used.

In response to issue 241, the core was changed to require that 
timestamps be in UTC format.

In response to issue 127, I think we also our recommendations WRT to 
cannonicalization algorithms.

By providing this list, I am not suggesting that I have found or aware of
all such changes, as Rob Philpott has just demonstrated, I missed at 
least one
other change to the schemas.

Ron

Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:

>It isn't clear to me that the changes were substantive. 
>
>Jerry, Ron, if you feel the changes were substantive can you please summarize what was substantive?
>Fact, not opinion, is needed.
>
>Otherwise I don't believe we have a procedural issue here.
>
>regards, Frederick
> 
>Frederick Hirsch
>Nokia Mobile Phones
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
>>Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:12 AM
>>To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: [wss] OASIS submission ballot invalid? Re: [wss] WSS 
>>TC ballots
>>- second reminder
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>   Not to be a procedural wonk, but doesn't this mean that the second 
>>ballot is "out of order" and "invalid"? Assuming the first 
>>ballot passes, 
>>then there needs to be another public review, and no 
>>substantive changes as 
>>a result of that review, before that document can be proposed 
>>as an OASIS 
>>standard?
>>    cheers,
>>     jeff
>>
>>At 08:40 PM 1/22/2004, Ron Monzillo wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Jerry,
>>>
>>>I share your opinion that substantive changes were made to the spec,
>>>and that we should conduct another review cycle.
>>>
>>>Therefore, I have also voted NO on the ballot "Submit to 
>>>      
>>>
>>OASIS for final 
>>    
>>
>>>approval ?".
>>>
>>>Ron
>>>
>>>Jerry Schwarz wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>At 02:06 PM 1/21/2004, Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Apparently the system failed to send the automatic reminder it was 
>>>>>supposed to send today so I am sending another reminder to 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>you all to 
>>    
>>
>>>>>vote in the currently open ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>>We are now more than half-way through the work week and a 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>great many of 
>>    
>>
>>>>>us have yet to vote - please do vote soon so we can begin 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>collating the 
>>    
>>
>>>>>results prior to our TC call next week. Many thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>I will send a final reminder later in the week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>Kelvin
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>FYI. I have just voted yes on making this a CD, but no on 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>submitting for 
>>    
>>
>>>>final with the comment attached below.
>>>>
>>>>-----------------
>>>>Oracle believes that there have been too many changes to 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the documents to 
>>    
>>
>>>>advance it to final status another public review period.
>>>>
>>>>According to the OASIS Procedures. " If substantive changes 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>are made to 
>>    
>>
>>>>the specification after the start of the public review then 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the TC should 
>>    
>>
>>>>conduct another review cycle".
>>>>
>>>>I will cite as one instance of a substantive change the 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>change from QName 
>>    
>>
>>>>to URI for the valuetype attributes.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Rereading the comment I see a missing "without" and a typo. 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>The first 
>>    
>>
>>>>sentence should read
>>>>
>>>>"Oracle believes that there have been too many changes to 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the documents 
>>    
>>
>>>>to advance them to final status without another public 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>review period."
>>    
>>
>>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the roster of 
>>    
>>
>>>>the OASIS TC), go to 
>>>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/lea
>>>>        
>>>>
>ve_workgroup.php.
>  
>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
>>the OASIS TC), go to 
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
>Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
>Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
>Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>



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