All,
Could we also discuss about wrapping up 3.0 core. It's clear from the
discussions in the recent month that there are many integration issues
which need to be addressed, and I don't think those are going to affect
core.
I really would like to close the core specification so we can move on to
other issues. As we go now, we keep adding new open issues all the time
which then end up laying with no action for months.
I suggest that we don't add anything new to the core anymore, but just
fix the current open issues. From the issues list, this is my opinion:
12: This doesn't go into the core. The use cases will be handled by the
obligation families spec instead. I don't think we need to change the
response schema for this, instead we can wrap the response from the
families into an obligation, which means that we get a natural point for
a PEP to tell whether it can handle the response. Also, I would prefer
for this specification to lag behind the rest of the 3.0 package since
it is still quite immature and I don't want the rest to wait for this.
If we keep core open while we work on this, the feature creep on core
will just go on.
23: This is already fixed on my hard drive.
36. This can be fixed easily. I made a draft for an extensible metadata
schema. Do we want to go with something like that?
62: Doesn't belong in core. Unless someone is willing to do the work to
write this up, I would like to drop this from the 3.0 package for a
later date.
66. This affects core and we need to decide on it.
67. Is not really an open technical issue. It's about reviewing what I
did about xpath 2. Since we have no one to review it, we should just
close this issue as done.
72. This has been resolved and I will fix the text for the next draft.
75. It has already been decided that this is not on the critical path to 3.0
82. Simple errata.
83. Some errata that I can have a look at.
86. I am willing to work on this.
87. This is an 2.0 errata which is already fixed and waiting to be closed.
88. I though we already decided on this, but it says OPEN. It might be
that I haven't updated the wiki.
89, 90. Are already fixed on my hard drive.
91. These need to be fixed, but it will be simple to do so.
There is also the policy id in the result which has no issue number. Is
anyone working on it?
/Erik
Bill Parducci wrote:
> Time: 10:00 am EDT
> Tel: 512-225-3050 Access Code: 65998
>
> Proposed Agenda:
>
> 10:00 - 10:05 Minutes & Roll Call
> 28 August 2008 TC Meeting
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00011.html
>
> 11 September 2008 TC Meeting
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00016.html
>
> 10:05 - 10:10 Administrivia
> Interoperability Announcement, April 4-8 2009
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00044.html
>
> 10:10 - 11:00 Issues
> Issue 66
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00012.html
>
> p-code/normative combining descriptions
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00017.html
>
> multiple action-id Request/Action elements
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00022.html
>
> Unicode/string matching
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200809/msg00040.html
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
