Forwarding an email from Greg Newby, our GGF Editor. ----- Hiro Kishimoto 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