RE: [xacml] Specification number...

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>]

Title: RE: [xacml] Specification number...

Hi Bill,

I like this suggestion!

Unless I hear any violent objections, I will make the name of the document "Committee Specification 1.0 (Revision 1), 12 December 2002" and make its document identifier "cs-xacml-specification-1.0-1.doc".

Carlisle.

-----Original Message-----
From: bill parducci [mailto:bill.parducci@overxeer.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:56 PM
To: XACML TC
Subject: Re: [xacml] Specification number...

i think "1.x" will continue to have the same level of confusion regardless of the numeration construct. how about:

"XACML v1.0, Specification Candidate 1 (2,3,4)"
or
"XACML v1.0, Editorial Version 1 (2,3,4)"

this way the spec 'version' never changes, just the editorial numbering (which will be discarded once submitted and approved).

b

Carlisle Adams wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On today's call we decided to change the number of the new Committee
> Spec. to 1.1 (since the version we approved prior to the start of the
> comment period was 1.0).  However, in several places in the spec we
> refer to "XACML v1.0", and all of our names (URIs) have "1.0" in them. 
> Ultimately, if we get to OASIS Standard, I assume that standard will be
> numbered 1.0.  This all seems potentially confusing.
>
> Would it be any better to call this Committee Specification version
> 1.01, or 1.0a, or 1.0.1?  Any other suggestions or comments?
>
> Please respond as soon as possible; I'd like to get the final version
> out today.
>
> Carlisle.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>