In https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/201706/msg00014.html, Hal Lockhart, TC co-chair reports: Subject: RE: [xacml-comment] Invitation to comment on XACML V3.0 Errata 01 - ends June 16th Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) --- Error 1 was corrected in the Errata by changing the sentence to read: "policies which were found to be fully applicable, whether or not the (after rule combining) was the same or different from the ". Unfortunately this change did not make it into the core spec with errata applied and hence not into the redline version. The fix will be applied to the core. ---- Error 2 does not seem to be present in either the Errata or the updated core or redline version. No change ----- Error 3 was missed in the previous pass and is not corrected in any of the documents. This will be added to the Errata and updated core. ---- As previously noted, Cyril’s name will be added to the Acknowledgements section of the Errata document. Hal From: DANGERVILLE Cyril [mailto:cyril.dangerville@thalesgroup.com] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 6:33 AM To: xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xacml-comment] Invitation to comment on XACML V3.0 Errata 01 - ends June 16th Hello, I would like to report a few remaining issues (I’m using the redlined version for line numbers): 1) Section 5.48, line 2939: "policies which were found to be fully applicable, whether or not the was the same or different from the ". This sentence is wrong (or cryptic at the least) since policies do not have/return an element. What is this referring to? 2) Section 5.48, line 2941: typo: "policies". 3) Section 10.2.9, line 3996: typo: "policies". In addition, may I ask to be mentioned somehow in the spec for such contribution? In Acknowledgement or Revision History sections maybe. I’d really appreciate, plus that would be a good way to “value feeback” from non-members in general. But I would understand if it is a privilege of TC members. Best regards, Cyril --- Cyril Dangerville Security Engineer, CISSP Thales