Re: [ebxml-cppa] **VOTE** BPSS/CPPA issue - #21 (old)

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

I abstain on this proposal.

Reason for abstention: I would prefer a proposal that allows the pair of
partners to downgrade or turn off security as well as to update the level
of security.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



David Smiley <dsmiley@mercator.com> on 12/13/2001 10:26:04 AM

To:    ebTWG-BPS <ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>, ebXML-CPPA
       <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    [ebxml-cppa] **VOTE** BPSS/CPPA issue - #21 (old)



No substantive responses have been received that require
modifying the proposed change to the specification.

Your vote is needed.

**Do you agree with the proposed change?**

FYI,
Once approved, the resolution goes into the
BPSS Issues Log (Pallavi). Then, an editor will be assigned
to make the changes to the spec prescribed by the resolution.

*************************************************************Old/New issue:
Old
Re-numbered for V1.1: 21
Number: 57
Date: 4/4
Originator: Christopher Ferris
Line: Lines 1081-1100

Issue:

I am still quite uncomfortable with this scheme. It does not
permit a degree of flexibility that allows for a combination
of persistent and transient security mechanisms. For instance,
use of a persistent digital signature over the contents of
the message (or on selected parts) to provide for authentication
as well as integrity combined with a transient encryption of
the message on the wire. Having "isSecureTransport" qualify the
security characteristics of the Document Flow is IMHO, a poor
design. I would much prefer that isConfidential, isAuthenticated
and isTamperProof have the enumeration of "persistent",
"transient" and "none" (default) such that valid combinations
of security mechanisms might be applied.

Suggestion for Change to BPSS Spec:

For isConfidential, isAuthenticated and isTamperProof, change
the type from boolean to enumerated value.

Make the list of possible values be "persistent", "transient",
"persistent-and-transient", "none" with the default being "none".

The value of the attribute, if other than "none" could be
interpreted as "at least <value>".  Thus, if the value were
"transient" it would be interpreted as "at least transient"
which could mean that the parties might choose to adopt a
persistent form of the appropriate countermeasure if they were
more paranoid than the authors of the process. A value of
"persistent" would be interpreted as "at least persistent" which
could be augmented with transient countermeasures (e.g. a digitally
signed message carried over a bilaterally authenticated SSL connection).

Issue Comments:

Background material:
Some comments were posted against V0.99
http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/jdt/ts/SpecificationSchemaV0.99.pdf.
The current draft being revised is V1.01
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS.pdf or
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS.doc.

David Smiley
Director of Standards
Mercator Software
540.338.3355



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>