RE: Challenge-Response/OBI & S2ML (Anders Rundgren's suggestion )

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

I for one would like to see a clear statement of what you are proposing.

Since the TC just had its first meeting and there was no technical content
discussed, I don't see how anybody can claim that such and such is in or out
of the spec at this point. In my opinion, as we agreed, S2ML is one of the
inputs to this work, but as of today, the TC has NO documents.

I also don't see how you can answer a question like Anders' without agreeing
on some use cases. If we agree to support a use case that requires his
whatever it is, them we must support that feature. 

Conversely, as a general principle, we should not put anything in the specs
that is not required by some use case.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:22 PM
> To: Orchard, David; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: Challenge-Response/OBI & S2ML (Anders Rundgren's 
> suggestion
> )
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> > I guess it's open to debate, but Jamcracker plans on voting 
> against any
> > addition of challenge/response of credentials.  
> 
> As I wrote to Zahid, it is not such a surprise if the 
> original authors want to continue on
> the path *they* set.  I have no problems with your position, 
> but I do think that either
> we take that voting pretty soon to avoid potentially endless 
> boring debates and flamings,
> or assign a sub-group to prepare material for general comments.
> 
> If there is a majority supporting the current scheme (in 
> spite of not seen any
> alternatives whatsoever) the voting should be quick and painless.
> 
> So I would like to Challenge the TC!  Now, where is the 
> Response?  :-) :-)
> 
> - NO
> - YES
> - or limited-time task-force
> 
> Regards
> Anders
>