Olle, I would suggest option (1), get it out there. I thought it stood well enough as is. If we want to do (3), I suggest making that a separate document and don't hold up the current document which is useful in itself. Von On Apr 24, 2006, at 4:36 AM, Olle Mulmo wrote:
All,
I'm curious as to Vincenzo's informational write-up on VOMS, submitted to the group on February 13.
VOMS is used in a number of production grids today. It is the basis for interoperating authorization in the GIN effort. Having a solid write-up on its internals and semantics would most certainly be welcome.
Question: how should this be handled? I can see it go multiple ways:
1. The document goes into public comment as an individual submission more or less as is 2. This group makes a round of editing on it first and then do a 2- week last call on the list before the public comment 3. This group includes the document it in the revised charter as another deliverable
While the current document seems rather complete, I include 3. as an option anyhow as there are additional things to think of: for instance, a SAML wrapping of the attributes instead of/in addition to the current X.509 attribute certificate format. If we want such a thing (and I think we do), this would in turn advocate for a separation between the definition and the semantics of the attributes, and the packaging/delivery mechanisms of those attributes.
Regards,
/Olle