RE: Comments on Straw Man 2: Protection of message contents

[George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com]

I agree with what Irving says here (namely that this should be specified as
part of bindings.  But I'm not
sure it's an issue -- weren't we planning to do this anyway?

--bob

Bob Blakley
Chief Scientist
Enterprise Solutions Unit
Tivoli Systems, Inc. (an IBM Company)


Darren Platt <dplatt@securant.com> on 02/22/2001 02:52:36 PM

To:   Irving Reid <Irving.Reid@baltimore.com>,
      security-use@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: Comments on Straw Man 2: Protection of message contents



Irving,

We think your comment is related to issue ISSUE:[UC-12-01:Encryption].  Do
we need to start a new issue for this, or can you suggest some text for the
existing issue which satisfies your concern?

Regards,

Darren



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Irving Reid [mailto:Irving.Reid@baltimore.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: security-use@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Comments on Straw Man 2: Protection of message contents
>
>
> The Straw Man 2 use case document says under Requirements / Non-Goals:
>
> No provision is made for protecting [OSSML] messages from interception by
> third parties. This is left up to the transport mechanism of
> choice between
> authorities.
>
> We will be producing a document detailing bindings between OSSML messages
> and underlying protocols. The bindings documents should describe whether
> OSSML messages are protected within that binding, and if so, how they are
> protected.
>
>  - irving -
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: security-use-request@lists.oasis-open.org