Kim,
Should the "Previous Version" be the latest working draft, latest
committee draft or latest Oasis standard? I cannot find any guideline
for this, so I assumed that is the latest Oasis standard since most
people would not think of that the previous version before XACML 3.0 is
"XACML 3.0 working draft 15", rather the would think that the previous
version is 2.0.
In either case, you said in your review that there was no problems in
xacml-3.0-core-spec-cd-02-en.doc, which lists XACML 2.0 as the previous
version.
So, either:
1. "Previous version" should be the previous working/committee draft
version, in which case all documents are wrong (since they say 2.0)
2. "Previous version" should be the latest Oasis standard, in which case
all documents are ok (since there was no previous Oasis standard of
xacml-3.0-administration-v1-spec-cd-02-en.doc, so it should be N/A)
Best regards,
Erik
On 2010-02-24 15:01, Kim Goolsby wrote:
> 1. Previous Version:
> Should read as follows:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-administration-v1-spec-cd-1-en.html
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-administration-v1-spec-cd-1-en.doc
> (Authoritative)
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-3.0-administration-v1-spec-cd-1-en.pdf
>
>
> 2. Related Work: Should include URI [this change is optional]
>
> 3. Remove 'Latest Approved Version:'