Hi Greg,
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
The comment is made against "Attributes used in OGSA Authorization" not "OGSA roadmap." You've pasted my comment here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=1282 And actual comments are made in the uploaded word document; https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485 You can find my comment on the first page: "OGSA-WG has OGSA profile definition document and OGSA WSRF Basic Profile as an example. I recommend to re-format this document based on the OGSA profile definition." At the August F2F meeting in Sunnyvale, OGSA-WG and OGSA-AuthZ-WG have agreed not to reformat this version. From the F2F meeting minutes;
Attributes document give information background and defines profiles. Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this in version 2.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period.
We think the changes are all minor and we don't need another public comment period. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Gregory Newby wrote:
(Note that I'm not on the ogsa-wg mailing list -- please forward this note if needed)
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents.
There are definitely some items that will apply much more broadly....for example, the discussion about how to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA versus using the acronym.
These types of items would be great for another document, even a casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a formal document. This is something I could link in (here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) & update as needed.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period. -- Greg