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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xacml message

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

Subject: RE: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

Lets talk about it on the call.
I beleive that if the changes are non-substantive we can do all the necessary votes on a single call. We can vote to CD based on a WD. We can then vote to have the chairs request a CS ballot once the CD version has been created. The actual CS ballot has to be online anyway.
The changes proposed by Jan are to examples. The changes proposed by Ludwick are to non-normative schema fragments. It seems clear to me that all these changes are non-substantive.
Legally we can ignore these comments because a) they were made after the end of the PR and b) they are not in scope for the PR sicen they were not changed since the 1st PR.
I understand the frustration on how long this has all taken, but I hate to go final with known errata.
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Rissanen [mailto:erik@axiomatics.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:47 AM
To: xacml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec


I don't think we can change the content of the spec without reissuing a new working draft and redoing all the votes. To what level are we supposed to go next? How many steps is that to redo? And how quickly can we do the votes?

The problem is that I think in many cases we cannot vote forward without having the intermediate docs actually present, which means that there is a two week cycle between each vote.

Best regards,

On 06/16/2010 09:33 PM, Harold Lockhart wrote:
cbbe0f6b-c157-4970-8dac-518117cf0a9a@default type="cite">
Can we fix this easily? As far I can see there were no other comments during th epublic review.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Herrmann [mailto:herrmanj@in.tum.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:48 AM
Subject: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

Dear all,

while using the XACML 3.0 docs, I noticed that in some examples the old RequestContextPath XML Attribute of the <AttributeSelector> is used.

In order to be consistent with the AttributeSelector definition under section 5.30, we should change this and replace RequestContextPath by Path in the examples in section 2.

Best regards


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