OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

    Posted 06-09-2010 09:48
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    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

    jan

     



  • 2.  RE: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

    Posted 06-16-2010 19:34
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Erik,
     
    Can we fix this easily? As far I can see there were no other comments during th epublic review.
     
    Hal
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jan Herrmann [mailto:herrmanj@in.tum.de]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:48 AM
    To: XACML TC
    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

    jan

     



  • 3.  Re: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

    Posted 06-17-2010 07:47
    
    
      
    
    
    Hal,

    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,
    Erik


    On 06/16/2010 09:33 PM, Harold Lockhart wrote:
    Erik,
     
    Can we fix this easily? As far I can see there were no other comments during th epublic review.
     
    Hal
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jan Herrmann [mailto:herrmanj@in.tum.de]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:48 AM
    To: XACML TC
    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

    jan

     




  • 4.  RE: [xacml] minor bug in the XACML 3.0 core spec

    Posted 06-17-2010 15:05
    
    
    
    
    
    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.
     
    Hal
    -----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

    Hal,

    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,
    Erik


    On 06/16/2010 09:33 PM, Harold Lockhart wrote:
    Erik,
     
    Can we fix this easily? As far I can see there were no other comments during th epublic review.
     
    Hal
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jan Herrmann [mailto:herrmanj@in.tum.de]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 5:48 AM
    To: XACML TC
    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

    jan