Review of the RBAC profile citations

[Erik Rissanen <erik@axiomatics.com>]

All,

As you may have noticed from the posts to the list, I am now doing the 
citation review all the "legacy profiles".

One of the profiles I am reviewing is the RBAC profile, and I used the 
same checklist as for the others:

1. That no content was lost because I used a working draft as the source 
of migration rather than the published CS.
 a. Verify that the content changelog is the same, to check that no 
technical content was lost.
 b. Verify that no updates to cross references were lost.
(Note that the frontmatter is managed by OASIS staff and should be up to 
date with the new template after I have changed the date and WD number.)

2. That the RFC citations conform to the required formatting conventions.

The results of the review are:

1a. The current WD is based on a previous WD which is newer than the 
latest CS. The previous WD is several years old and I am assuming that 
it was based on the correct version back then in terms of technical content.

1b. There are no cross references to other XACML profiles to fix. I 
already updated the reference to XACML core to the OS version, using the 
correct citation format.

2. The only RFC reference was already correct.

Conclusion: WD 10 of the RBAC profile is good as it stands. Hence you 
won't see an updated upload. I am posting this email for the record.

Best regards,
Erik