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
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
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