[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]