Re: Access Control: integrated Requirements, Use Cases and FAQ

Seeing the requirements ending up in the draft surprised me too. I don't 
feel strongly either way. The advantage of a note is that we can get it 
nailed down before the rest of the spec. However I'm not sure how much 
overhead comes with publishing a separate Note.

The most important thing is that we get all requirements and use cases 
into a doc of some sort.

If you have changes in your draft that aren't in the spec from anne 
please do send them to the list so we make sure they don't get lost. And 
I'm definitely grateful that you started the work on the requirements 
doc, no matter where they finally end up.

Best Regards,
Jonas Sicking

David Orchard wrote:
> Hi Art, Anne, et al
> I'm glad that Anne is including the reqs/uc/faq in the spec, but I'm
> seriously confused about what to review.  Art, you asked for the use
> cases you presented to be added into the doc, which I did.  Those aren't
> in Anne's document.  We discussed a few things on the telcon, such as
> the non-requirement of JSON, that I updated (though haven't published
> given Anne and your comments) but aren't in the Ed draft.  It looks to
> me like the content of this doc is fairly different than what people had
> been asking for previously.  Any time there is such a divergence,
> confusion often arises, which would slow down progress on reqs and use
> cases.  
> Having said that and retaining that concern, I think it's good that the
> WG now has an editors version of the reqs and use cases for review.
> That's what I have wanted all along.  If the WG would ever like any
> editorial help in the future, I'd be glad to contribute.  It's a nice
> situation when editorial help isn't needed :-)
> Cheers,
> Dave
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arthur Barstow [] 
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:24 AM
>> To: David Orchard; Anne van Kesteren
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: Access Control: integrated Requirements, Use 
>> Cases and FAQ
>> Dave, Anne, All,
>> On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:36 PM, ext David Orchard wrote:
>>> The Working Group has not talked about or agreed to integrating the 
>>> requirements and use cases into the access control spec.  
>> In fact, we 
>>> had a discussion last week about going to Note on document. 
>>  I don't 
>>> mind not editing the requirements document if that's bothering you,
>> Dave is correct - on Jan 16 we agreed to put the UCs, 
>> requirements, etc. in a WG Note. Again, I think the highest 
>> priority is to document this information and I remain mostly 
>> indifferent as to whether this documentation is captured in a 
>> non-normative part of the spec or a separate WG Note.
>> However, since Dave is agreeable to not continuing to edit 
>> the requirements document my recommendation is to just use the spec.
>>> but I'd like these changes to be backed out because they do 
>> not have 
>>> any WG consensus.
>> As Anne mentioned in his reply to this thread [1], our 
>> working mode is for the Editor to capture inputs, 
>> discussions, etc. in an Editor's Draft (ED) and for the other 
>> WG members to submit comments against the ED. In this case, 
>> we know Jonas supports the addition of these requirements and 
>> I also voiced my support for adding them [2]. Thus I view 
>> Anne's action as being consistent with our current working model.
>> Regards, Art Barstow
>> [1] 
>> <>
>> [2] <
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:
>>>> [] On Behalf Of Anne
>>>> van Kesteren
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:32 AM
>>>> To: WAF WG (public)
>>>> Subject: Access Control: integrated Requirements, Use Cases and FAQ
>>>> Hi,
>>>> To help keep us on track I took the feedback we had on use
>>>> cases and requirements so far and integrated them into the
>>>> main specification as proposal. I have also integrated the
>>>> design decision FAQ I created because several people
>>>> indicated it was a useful document.
>>>> Feedback welcome!

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 00:42:59 UTC