[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
Thomas *did* ask a question of the commentator which included a possible
resolution to the issue but as far as I can tell this was never turned
into an *actual* proposal.=20
I'd also note that Thomas was on the call on 2005-09-06, but didn't make
a proposal during discussion of issue 428. I've cced Thomas in case his
recollection doesn't match the minutes.
Gudge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hodges [mailto:Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz]=20
> Sent: 05 October 2005 17:43
> To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wss] wrt Issue 428
>=20
> From the minutes of the 4-Oct-2005 concall (yesterday)...
>=20
> Kelvin - for J Hodges - 428 "closed because no action proposed"
> - Gudge to take AI to trace 428 and was Jeff's proposal on the
> table when voted.
>=20
> thanks for covering this Kelvin (and apologies for my having=20
> to drop off the=20
> call early).
>=20
> To help Gudge out, the answer to the above AI is "yes" -- the=20
> proposal was on=20
> the table at the time of the 6-Sep call, the proposal was Thomas' (of=20
> 31-Aug-2005), and it all is documented in the forwarded=20
> messages below.
>=20
> This is an admittedly detail-level item, but it is an=20
> identifiable loose end=20
> that was manifested in the public comment period and so=20
> should be properly=20
> dealt with.
>=20
> thanks again,
>=20
> JeffH
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06=20
> (with roll call)
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:17:25 -0700
> From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>
> To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
>=20
>=20
> Paul Cotton wrote:
> > OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06
> >
> > [VER 2]
>=20
> <snippage/>
>=20
> > Issue 428
> > Frederick asked for more time at the last meeting but has=20
> not yet done
> > anything. Since there is no concrete proposal we will=20
> change status to
> > Closed.
>=20
> This issue actually had two nominal approaches - (a) allow=20
> for STR->STR
> references, or (b) unambiguously rule such references out, as=20
> Conor stated in
> this msg to wss-comment@...
>=20
>=20
> Subject: recursive Security Token References
> * From: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
> * To: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> * Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:02:32 -0400
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200508/msg00018.html
>=20
> .
> .
> "I think that at the absolute minimum there should be
> a statement about this case, perhaps saying it is out
> of scope for the specification -- although I would rather
> see this situation addressed."
> .
> .
>=20
>=20
> I believe that there in fact was a reasonable concrete=20
> proposal made (by
> Thomas) in response, taking approach (b), in these messages to wss@...
>=20
>=20
> Subject: RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
> * From: "DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>
> * To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
> * Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:45:34 -0700
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html
>=20
> Subject: Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token=20
> References
> * From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>
> * To: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> * Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:55:15 -0700
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00010.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ..and so I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no action,=20
> but rather direct
> the editor to incorporate the language suggested by Thomas in=20
> his email message
> =20
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html
> ), and change
> the status of the issue to be "pending review".
>=20
> JeffH
>=20
>=20
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [wss] wrt Issue 428 (was: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS=20
> WSS TC Minutes=20
> 2005-09-06 (with roll call))
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:03:38 -0700
> From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>
> To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
>=20
> further explanation/clarification:
>=20
> I was unfortunately not on the call - my prior message in=20
> this thread was not a
> comment on the minutes per se. Rather it is a comment on the=20
> the decision taken
> wrt Issue 428, as represented in the minutes. I feel said decision was
> incorrect because there actually *is* a concrete proposal for=20
> resolving the
> issue, as I explained in my prior message [1].
>=20
> JeffH
>=20
> [1] Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call)
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00055.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [wss] wrt Issue 428
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:25:48 -0700
> From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>
> To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
>=20
> It appears from the draft minutes that issue 428 wasn't=20
> discussed on the call.
> This is likely because it is shown as closed (incorrectly,=20
> imv) in the Issues
> list, and I unfortunately was distracted (driving; apologies)=20
> when we were
> going thru the open Issues post-334.
>=20
> So, again, issue 428 was closed on the 6-Sep call, with the=20
> (incorrect) claim
> that "..there is no concrete proposal", which I pointed out=20
> in this message..
>=20
>=20
> [1] Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call)
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00055.html
>=20
>=20
> and which I followed up on here..
>=20
>=20
> [2] wrt Issue 428 (was: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes
> 2005-09-06(with roll call))
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00057.html
>=20
>=20
> The gist of Thomas' suggested resolution [3] to 428 is..
>=20
>=20
> ..[edit lines in SMS Core] 903-904 as follows (removing=20
> things in {}
> and adding things in [])...
>=20
>=20
> "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for=20
> {where to find} a
> security token. If a fragment is specified, then it=20
> indicates the local
> ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST=20
> identify a
> security token. The URI MUST NOT identify a=20
> wsse:SecurityTokenReference
> element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a
> wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]"
>=20
>=20
> ..yielding this revised text [4]...
>=20
> This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for a
> security token. If a fragment is specified, then it=20
> indicates the local
> ID of the security token being referenced. The URI MUST=20
> identify a
> security token. The URI MUST NOT identify a=20
> wsse:SecurityTokenReference
> element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a
> wsse:KeyIdentifier element.
>=20
>=20
> As I said in [1], I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no=20
> action, but rather
> direct the editor to incorporate the language suggested by=20
> Thomas in his email
> message=20
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html), and
> change the status of the issue to be "pending" (I had=20
> suggested a status of
> "pending review", but that was apparently incorrect, the=20
> editor needs to make
> the change before attaining the latter status).
>=20
> thanks,
>=20
> JeffH
>=20
>=20
> [3] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html
>=20
> [4] Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00010.html
>=20
> ---
> end
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all=20
> your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php=20
>=20
>=20
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]