Re: [xacml] Groups - xacml-3.0-core-spec-errata01-wd02.doc uploaded

[Steven Legg <steven.legg@viewds.com>]

Hi Richard,

The INFOSET reference needs to be added to the core spec, so there has to be an
errata item to add the INFOSET reference to the normative references of the core
spec, e.g.:

    2.X Reference to INFOSET

    Change to section 1.4 Normative References, page 12

    Add
        [INFOSET]    XML Information Set (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation
                4 February 2004, available at https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/

I would suggest putting 2.X before the current 2.2 to be the new 2.2 and
renumbering the sections that follow so that the order of the errata matches
the order of the core specification.

For the errata document itself, the only real normative reference is [XACML3],
since this is the document to which the errata are to be applied. The errata
document is a series of cut-and-paste operations, which does not require an
understanding of either [INFOSET] or [RFC2119] to perform, so these references are
not normative for the errata items (though they are for the core spec). The
RFC2119 keywords appear in the cut-and-paste text but are not used elsewhere in
the errata document outside the terminology section, so the terminology section
is redundant. Though note that the terminology section, and only the terminology
section, makes [RFC2119] a normative reference.

So the revisions would be:

(1) Either remove the [INFOSET] reference from the normative references, or move
    it to the non-normative references.

(2) Either remove the terminology section and [RFC2119] normative reference,
    or remove the terminology section and move [RFC2119] to the non-normative
    references, or do nothing (i.e., let it be redundant and self-fulfilling).

I think moving the [INFOSET] and [RFC2119] references to the non-normative
references would be best to deflect erroneous assertions of missing references.

Regards,
Steven