OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-if message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Groups - DRAFT-03-06-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.odt uploaded

Submitter's message
Please review these minutes from the March 6th, 2010 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee for approval at our upcoming meeting, subject to any specified changes. Thanks.
-- Jeff Waters
Document Name: DRAFT-03-06-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.odt

At the March 6th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework
subcommittee, the members continued to review and resolve comments from the
public review of the draft DE 2.0. The members discussed the following

1. TOPIC: Is ?classified/unclassified? sufficient for default terms for
confidentiality? (Answer: Yes. A concern was raised that these terms may
suggest that confidentiality is slanted toward government or Department of
Defense use, but that is not the case. Picking other terms raises its own
set of issues. The consensus opinion is that ?classified/unclassified? is
generic and will encourage users to think about and select a more
appropriate list from the appropriate domain, without this standard picking
one over another.)

2. TOPIC EMFW-17: Should we add a section up front in the specification to
better explain how to link Distribution Element 2.0 (DE 2.0) objects?
(Answer: Yes. A motion was approved to ?Add Section 1.3.5 'Linking Content
Objects and Other DE Components' and provide a better explanation of this
topic in one spot and reference it in those elements that enable

3. TOPIC EMFW-16: Should we move the current section 3.2.10, explaining
the common elements, up front in the specification since prefixes like
?ct:? are used in the specification prior to the explanation? (Answer:
Yes. A motion was approved to ?Add to the specification a section 1.3.6
'Common Elements' and move the content of Section 3.2.10 to this new
section 1.3.6 and fix the reference to 'edxl-cig' to 'edxl-ct' for the
geopolitical location type. ?)

4. TOPIC EMFW-15: Can users adequately distinguish a DE 2.0 message from a
DE 1.0 message? (Answer: Yes. A DE 2.0 message can be distinguished by
it's namespace, and by validating the message against the DE 2.0 schema. A
motion was approved that ?No change needed. The namespace and validation
according to the schema is the way to tell what version you are using.?)

5. TOPIC EMFW-14 and 13: What type of signing is appropriate for the DE
2.0 and is the location of ##other sufficient to enable this? (Answer:
The consensus was that the signing component of the DE should allow for
signing the entire message when the EDXLDistribution wrapper element is
used. Signing ensures receivers can verify the integrity of an entire DE
message; however, signing of content objects themselves should be left to
the creators of those content objects and enabled by the corresponding
content object schema, not the DE 2.0. The location of ##other needs
further review to determine whether it is in the correct spot in the
schema. Motion: ?Our intent is to allow signing of the entire DE 2.0 when
the EDXLDistribution wrapper is used, but otherwise content providers are
responsible for their own signing and encryption of their content objects
and if DE 2.0 components, like Content, are used with other wrappers then
the user is responsible for signing using whatever mechanisms are provided
by the other wrapper.?)


(1) JIRA DE 2.0 Issues List:
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Jeff Waters
Group: EM Infrastructure Framework SC
Folder: Resources
Date submitted: 2012-03-13 01:38:46

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]