[security-services] RE: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer

Title: RE: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer

Since there has been no discussion of these issues on the list, I assume that there is no Champion who wishes to see these issues deferred. Therefore I will recommend that UC-9-02, DS-3-03 and DS-5-04 be permanently closed.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Hal Lockhart 

> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:18 AM

> To: 

> Subject: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer

> 

> 

> There are three minor points left from the last round if 

> issue closing. Mostly this is debate between me and Jeff.

> 

> UC-9-02 Privacy Statement. Last summer, we tried to formulate 

> a statment about an asserting party's (particularly an 

> Attribute Authority's) responsibility to provide the means to 

> allow users to control the privacy of their attributes. Three 

> different people offered wording, but neither the 

> subcommittee or the TC could agree on any of them. As a 

> result, no such statement appears in the specifications.

> 

> I proposed that we CLOSE this issue on the theory that if we 

> could not agree then and we have not discussed it since, we 

> are unlikely to agree in the future.

> 

> Jeff proposed that we DEFER the issue.

> 

> DS-3-03 - Validity Depends Upon - This is about the inclusion 

> of a ValidityDependsUpon element in the Conditions. I believe 

> that Prateek was a champion for this and the intent of the TC 

> was to defer it.

> 

> I recomended that we DEFER it.

> 

> Jeff recommended that unless someone was willing to argue for 

> it, we CLOSE it.

> 

> DS-5-04 - Request Reference - The full text of this is: 

> 

> There should be a way to reference an assertion as the 

> subject of a request. For example, a request might reference 

> an Attribute Assertion and ask if the subject of that 

> assertion could access a specified object.

> 

> I proposed we CLOSE this, it part because I thought I raised 

> it originally and I don't remember anyone else saying they wanted it.

> 

> Jeff proposed that we DEFER it.

> 

> I don't feel strongly about the choice between CLOSE and 

> DEFER for any of these, but I would like to avoid carrying 

> forward issues that nobody is really interested in.

> 

> Does anyone want to speak for DEFERRING any of these?

> 

> Hal

>