MicroProfile JWT RBAC 2.0 Specification Review

[sberyozkin]

• Specification name and version
• Add the label Release Review
• Naming conventions for artifacts:
  • Specification PDF in the form of microprofile-project-spec-version.pdf
  • Specification HTML in the form of microprofile-project-spec-version.html
  • project is the microprofile specification short project name (config, health, ...)
  • version is the two digit x.y version of the specification

• The Nexus Staging links (orgeclipsemicroprofile-NNNN where NNNN is the staging repository id) (eg, https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/orgeclipsemicroprofile-NNNN/org/eclipse/microprofile/config/) which contain all the binaries and relevant documentation:
  • Staging Repo
  • Spec PDF
  • Spec HTML
  • Javadoc
  • API Jar
  • TCK Jar

• A link in the Eclipse downloads sections is still available for specs and apidocs:
  • https://download.eclipse.org/microprofile/staging/microprofile-jwt-auth-2.0/
  • An apidocs directory containing the javadoc associated with the API jar.

• Summary that a Compatible Implementation is complete, passes the TCK, and that the TCK includes sufficient coverage of the specification.
  • [Compatible Certification Request] (Open Liberty 21.0.0.12-beta: MicroProfile JWT RBAC 2.0 RC2 Compatible Certification Request eclipse/microprofile-jwt-auth#269)

• Release Review
  • Follow governance process and create/update release record
    • Component Release Record
  • Email to PMC (more info here)
  • Start release review by emailing EMO (more info here)(Track the bug issue created by EMO after the email)
  • A member of Steering Committee initiates the ballot by sending an email to [microprofile-wg] (mailto:microprofile-wg@eclipse.org) (more info here
  • After the voting has ended, email [microprofile-wg] (mailto:microprofile-wg@eclipse.org) with the ballot result (more info here

[kwsutter]

A couple of comments...

• Same issue as the Config specification with the copyright in the EFSL (in the Spec documents) still stating 2020 (instead of 2021).
  Copyright (c) 2016, 2020 Eclipse Foundation.
• I added a couple of comments to the CCR and TCK Results.
• There is no license in the API jar file. This might be critical enough to force a respin...
• Again, I found the extra TCK license in the javadoc jar file. No idea why that license would be necessary, but it should be cleaned up. Not a requirement for this ballot, but if you have to clean up the API jar file...

I'd like to know if the API jar file needs to be recreated before I vote... Thanks!

[radcortez]

• Same issue as the Config specification with the copyright in the EFSL (in the Spec documents) still stating 2020 (instead of 2021).
  Copyright (c) 2016, 2020 Eclipse Foundation.

Fixed

• There is no license in the API jar file. This might be critical enough to force a respin...

Fixed

• Again, I found the extra TCK license in the javadoc jar file. No idea why that license would be necessary, but it should be cleaned up. Not a requirement for this ballot, but if you have to clean up the API jar file...

Fixed