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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:24 AM
To: David Orchard; Anne van Kesteren
Cc: [email protected]
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]
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/mid/506BCFA4-B426-462E-92F3-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#requirements
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#use-cases
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#design-decision-faq
Feedback welcome!
