RE: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions

[Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com>]

>     OD> I was instructed to keep the numbering and use cases
>     OD> roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session.  I didn't agree
>     OD> at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission.
>
> OK, I guess we might have some miscommunication.

I think so as well.  My only intention was to make sure that issue numbers
stayed consistent throughout the process so people could refer to them.  I
apologize for any misunderstanding.

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Prodromou
> [mailto:evan@priss.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us]On
> Behalf Of Evan Prodromou
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:18 PM
> To: Orchard, David
> Cc: security-use@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions
>
>
> >>>>> "OD" == Orchard, David <dorchard@jamcracker.com> writes:
>
>     OD> I'm baffled.  I have always wanted explicit scenarios showing
>     OD> differences between logout and timeout.  I originally wanted
>     OD> to make the scenarios explicit to show logout/timeout
>     OD> separately (and votable separately), hence my first
>     OD> submission.
>
> Wow. Well, I think I must have completely misread you, because to my
> mind this:
>
>        "[DavidO: Isn't this covered in UC-3-1? I've kept here for
>         backwards compatibility]"
>
> ...means that the issue is to be voted on as a single entity, and that
> the issue as stated is vestigial.
>
> I'm confused why you didn't add separate scenarios for logout and
> timeout under, say, UC-3-3 and UC-3-5?
>
> [Note that I'm kicking myself for not getting to a Windows machine and
> printing out your issues before late last week. I'm definitely the pot
> calling the kettle black as far as editing is involved. B-)]
>
>     OD> I was instructed to keep the numbering and use cases
>     OD> roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session.  I didn't agree
>     OD> at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission.
>
> OK, I guess we might have some miscommunication. I think issue group
> champions should have every right to re-write the issues, within the
> realm of good judgement.
>
> That said, it's probably ill-advised to re-number issues
> willy-nilly. Like, for example, re-using the same number for a
> completely separate issue, or making up a new naming or numbering
> scheme, etc.
>
> *I* find issues that have been refined to the point where they clearly
> delineate changes to the document ("Add the following requirement:
> [R-Blah]" "Add the following use case scenario:") to be the most
> useful. I think of them as patches that we either apply or not.
>
>     OD> It now looks like a good thing because some people appear to
>     OD> want session mgmt, but not logout and/or timeout.  This gives
>     OD> us a mechanism to approve the topic, and then dive into the
>     OD> details of what these mean.
>
> I find that it means we're going to be going through a whole separate
> round of issues, which kind of seems pointless.
>
> ~ESP
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>