W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > December 2005

Re: XKMS 2: errata: X.509 DNs not in RFC 2253 format

From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:33:16 +0100
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051214153316.GA28530@rakahanga.inrialpes.fr>

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:34:07AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Adding such a requirement seems sensible, but is perhaps a tad more
> than an erratum, so I'd prefer if implementers say they agree with
> this change before it gets made, since I guess its possible someone
> does something slightly different.
> Having said that, I'm not sure what the W3C process is for deciding
> that an erratum is approved or not. (Jose - do you just decide?)

We just decide ourselves, provided we stay in the domain of errata[1]

They are basically three types of errata:

1.  No changes to text content
2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features

The 3rd one requires launching a call for review of an edited
recommendation or a call for review of proposed corrections.

How should we classify James' errata? We should not be afraid or proposing
a review of proposed corrections if it's the right thing to do.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#errata
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:36:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:44 UTC