Re: [xacml] Summary of Discussion about Submitting XACML (and SAML) to the ITU

[Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@Sun.com>]

On 5 September, Hal Lockhart writes: [xacml] Summary of Discussion about Submitting XACML (and SAML) to the ITU 
 > 1. Does anyone in the TC have any objections to OASIS doing this? Short of
 > objections are there any questions or concerns that should be raised? If no
 > one has any problem with this, I propose we pass a resolution to that effect
 > at our next regular meeting on September 18th.

No objections or concerns.

 > 2. The second question is more vexed. What version of XACML should be
 > submitted? OASIS will most likely do whatever the TC recommends here. As I
 > see it we have three choices.
 > 
 > a) Submit 1.0. It is complete and approved. Presumably the ITU can fold in
 > the errata in some way. This would make the approval of 2.0 a done deal. On
 > the other hand, 1.0 is already obsoleted by 1.1.

2nd choice.

 > b) Take another look at submitting 1.1 as a OASIS standard. Part of the
 > reason for not submitting 1.1 was that there was no strong reason do do so.
 > Perhaps this is the reason. I am pretty sure with a little effort we could
 > come up with the necessary attestations, assuming the same criteria as for
 > 1.0. We could do the public review and submission in parallel with the 2.0
 > work. I don't expect a lot of comments. The new 20% rule is an issue, but
 > Karl says this is likely to be reversed soon and in any event we will have
 > to face it for 2.0.

1st choice.  Perhaps ITU would be willing to consider 1.1 as
"errata fixes" for 1.0, since we did no schema changes.

 > c) Wait until we finish 2.0. The pros and cons of this are fairly obvious.

3rd choice (way down)
-- 
Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692