RE: [office] Re: encryption

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I think this is a good approach.  Even though it is an extended use, we
prescribe the manner of the extension so there is no weakening of the
most-interoperable level.

We need to make sure this differentiation is incorporated into the
conformance language of Part 3.

The nice thing about this scheme is that it makes it easy to add URIs that
turn out to be important to the defined recognized set in future revisions,
with minimal specification updating.

It is also a scheme that an interop profile for some community of use could
recognize in advance of the wheels of standards revision.

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 04:58
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Re: encryption

Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> wrote on 09/02/2009 05:42:23 AM:
> 3) Do we allow implementation-defined algorithms beyond those which we
> have assigned identifiers to?
> 

That could work.  We already have extended conformance classes defined. It 
seems logical to allow the implementation-defined algorithms only in the 
extended class.

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php