Re: [emergency] SBE Viewpoint

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Gary,

I respect your position and opinion every bit as much as I respect Dave 
Ellis positions and opinions, and I work with him quite a lot.

Since I've already made my position clear, I won't repeat that. However, 
I do want to point out a few things.

1. If you go to the voting page, as of the time I'm writing this 
message, 6 voting members have yet to vote, so I'd like to encourage 
whomever has not voted to do so.

2. Even if this version of 1.2 fails to win Committee Specification 
approval and approval to be advanced for OASIS Standard Approval, CAP 
v1.1 allows the same problem that has been identified since CAP v1.1 
Section 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 allow digital signature and encryption of 
the <alert> with almost exactly the same language as CAP v1.2 Section 
3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2 .

The other main difference wrt this particular issue is that the CAP v1.2 
Schema explicitly carries the namespaces for xmldsig and xmlenc for two 
<any> tags.

We could delete the <any> tags from the schema, but it would not 
disallow anyone from signing and/or encrypting the CAP message, as they 
can now.

3. I have yet to hear a suggestion to eliminate this problem in CAP v1.2 
that doesn't require a new Review Process or moving to CAP 2.0.

The idea of taking a deep breath and a step back to re-evaluate has its 
costs, and those costs compound as the clock ticks. This problem has not 
crippled CAP yet. Is it likely to do so between now and when the TC 
completes CAP 2.0? If so, then, by all means, lets withdraw this version 
and get to work. However, my own available time is now fully committed 
or over committed.

Cheers,
Rex


Gary Timm wrote:
>
> EM-TC Members,
>
> After consultation with members of the organization I represent, the 
> Society of Broadcast Engineers, I must report that we have serious 
> concerns with the issues presented this past week regarding CAPv1.2, 
> particularly as it relates to Digital Signature. It would seem we as 
> the TC need to take a step back and reassess the readiness of CAPv1.2 
> to progress through the standards process. Additional testing is 
> perhaps in order to work out these current issues, so that in short 
> order a more implementable protocol can be presented for OASIS 
> Standards approval. Some have advocated for just approving CAPv1.2 and 
> fixing everything in CAPv2.0. However, with the OASIS CAP IPAWS 
> Profile based on CAPv1.2, that does not bode well for unhindered 
> implementation of CAPv1.2 for the Emergency Alert System and FEMA’s 
> IPAWS Program.
>
> I just wanted to make SBE’s viewpoint known to my fellow EM-TC members.
>
> Gary Timm, Society of Broadcast Engineers
>
> EM-TC Voting Member
>
> ......................................................................
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential or 
> legally privileged and is intended only for the recipient named above. 
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are 
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
> communication or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please immediately advise the 
> sender and delete the original and any copies from your computer system.
>
>   

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670