Re: [security-services] editorial comments on bindings-08

"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> 
> At 02:37 PM 1/8/02 -0500, Mishra, Prateek wrote:
> [...]
> >2. Section 2.1 mandates the provision of a URI and e-mail address for each
> >binding and
> >profile. This is currently missing in the text and needs to be added to the
> >binding
> >and each Profile. The intent here is that the URI provides an unambiguous
> >way to
> >reference a binding/profile. This is specially useful, if and when, there
> >are a larger number
> >of published bindings and profiles.

agreed, this info should be added to the bindings and profiles that are
specified in the bindings-model doc itself. 

> The URI issue is perhaps trickier than it sounds.  You should probably use
> the URI for the specific bindings-0n doc, rather than the overall TC
> website, so that the version of the profile gets locked down.

agreed. And so they will  need to get updated with each rev of the doc, as has
to be done with such refs in core-xx, and all will need to get done once and
for all once we emerge successfully from Last Call and prepare the "committee
specification" maturity level docs. 


> >  The relevant e-mail address for the "official bindings"
> >and profiles would seem to be the OASIS SSTC mailing list (the e-mail
> >address for comments
> >on the documents as a whole). This would ensure that issues discovered
> >during
> >deployment and implementation, as well as any new requirements for
> >individual bindings/profiles
> >have a home.
> 
> You mean security-services-comment, right?  Outsiders can't post to the
> regular TC list.

I agree it ought to be security-services-comment. A wrinkle to that list is
that by default it is only-subscribers-can-post, but anyone-may-subscribe. We
will need to put together canonical text to describe this since it's likely
we'll be referencing the comment lists from both doc cover pages and within
docs (as here in bindings). 

thanks,

JeffH