[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Initial drafts of all deliverables
No. I am the original author of the ASN.1 in X9.84. I am the editor, and will be the original author of anything ASN.1 or XML related that goes into X9.96. That is not to say that I do not seek X9s blessing. And it does not alleviate the need to properly cite anything from any standard that we use text from, which I'm sure you are aware and will take care of. I have not signed away any copyrights to my work, but I did contribute the ASN.1 to X9 with the intent that they publish the work. And we wish to create a derivative work that uses this material, so I have asked the X9 Secretariat for permission to do so. More importantly, I wish for X9 to agree to publish any errata that we develop doing XCBF, and to consider our revised ASN.1 schema and XML markup in future revisions of X9.84. Phil John Larmouth wrote: > > Yuck - does this mean we are in a copyright minefield in using anything > from X9.84? > > John L > > Phil Griffin wrote: > > > > John, > > > > Only the template format for X9.84 was changed to > > meet ISO requirements when it was submitted for > > fast track ballot. The fast track ballot has closed > > and the issue failed. > > > > This result is widely attributed in the US to be due > > to an orchestrated attack by the (UK) chair of SC17, > > who was trying to gather all biometric standardization > > under control of his card group. This even though > > X9.84 has far wider applicability than cards. > > > > SC 17 rebuffed offers from TC 68 to work jointly on > > progressing the US national standard, and twice sent > > out letters to its SC17 members with influence over > > or voting rights in TC68 containing suggested voting > > text that asked that the 21352 ballot be defeated and > > the document transposed to SC17. > > > > Almost all of the negative votes against 21352 contained > > this negative recommended text. But X9F has now voted to > > not provide SC17 or its US tag with any access to X9.84 > > and has cautioned that the document is copyrighted. The > > response of TC68/SC2 will be determined by the SC2 > > members at their next meeting in April. > > > > Meanwhile, the US has formed a new TC in the INCITS > > organization named M1 Biometrics and has asked that > > JTC1 create a new SC for all biometric standards and > > that M1 serve as the US tag. Work earmarked in the US > > for SC17 in B10 has been moved now to M1. > > > > And of course, the OASIS XCBF work has now started. And > > it will extend the current capabilities of X9.84, suggest > > changes to the ASN.1 in X9.84, and attempt to align that > > standard with the BioAPI BIR format. > > > > As a voting member of X9, I have been advocating that the > > X9.84 standard be proposed again as a NWI for normal track > > processing. If this could be done, I would wish to try to > > augment the current X9.84 document to reflect the work in > > XCBF. But there's a lot of politics involved and the way > > forward is unclear. > > > > Not closely related, but BTW. I have recently been named > > vice chair of TC68/SC2, and I will continue to serve as > > Convenor of the SC2/WG8 PKI group. > > > > Phil > > > > John Larmouth wrote: > > > > > > If I have not misunderstood, ISO DIS 21352 is the ISO equivalent of > > > X9.84. > > > > > > If that is so, then: > > > > > > 1) Surely we should be using THAT as our base, not X9.84? > > > > > > 2) When does the DIS ballot close? > > > > > > John L > > > > > > John L > > > > > > Phil Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > John, > > > > > > > > The timing was set to give us a chance to iron > > > > out problems that might arise before our due > > > > dates for deliverables. > > > > > > > > I recall though that we had not decided at time > > > > of TC request whether to have the May 16 meeting > > > > as a face to face or by telephone. I think that > > > > at the time, just you and Bancroft and Paul and > > > > I were in the conversation, and we had no way > > > > of knowing how to judge what the interest level > > > > in the work might be. > > > > > > > > BTW. If you look back at your mail, you'll find > > > > I've placed copies of the BioAPI document and > > > > the NIST CBEFF document on my web site (as I > > > > could not post it to the XCBF web site). These > > > > will be moved to the XCBF web site this weekend. > > > > > > > > X9.84 is still only available from the ansi.org > > > > electronic bookstore. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > John Larmouth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Are we seriously considering a *one-day* meeting on May 16th? > > > > > (Anywhere). I don't currently have this in my diary. It was my > > > > > understanding that the XCBF would normally be meeting alongside other > > > > > meetings the majority of us were attending (such as the Barcelona UBL > > > > > meeting, or perhaps the joint UBL and X.12 meeting in early June. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest it is better to try to progress things electronically, and the > > > > > crucial first step is to get all relevant documents mailed out. > > > > > > > > > > John L > > > > > > > > > > Phil Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When I requested the TC, I was required to specify a > > > > > > meeting schedule for the first year. OSS agreed to > > > > > > host the first meeting and provide everyone with > > > > > > the ability to dial in. > > > > > > > > > > > > OSS also agreed to host at their place in Somerset, > > > > > > NJ May 16, 2002. Bancroft, are you still game or > > > > > > would you prefer to open this up for discussion? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm giving an XCBF pitch at the ITU-T Workshop on > > > > > > Security in Seoul, Korea on the 13th and 14th. So, > > > > > > I'll be flying back after this in order to make > > > > > > the meeting. Flying back to California instead of > > > > > > NJ would allow my brain to catch up to my body a > > > > > > little quicker. > > > > > > > > > > > > But some of the folks that helped to plan the TC > > > > > > and get it started may have already made plans. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Tyky Aichelen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded by Tyky Aichelen/San Jose/IBM on 03/29/02 11:32 AM ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tyky Aichelen > > > > > > > To: Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com> > > > > > > > 03/29/02 11:13 AM cc: > > > > > > > From: Tyky Aichelen/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [xcbf] Initial drafts of all deliverables(Document link: Tyky > > > > > > > Aichelen) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Great! So we have Paul and I among the volunteering hosts, on West and East > > > > > > > coasts. > > > > > > > It would be nice if we can map out tentative Face-to-Face schedule for the > > > > > > > rest of 2002, > > > > > > > since people would need planning ahead and time for travel request approval > > > > > > > which can > > > > > > > be lengthy in some companies. > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, we wait and make suggestions to Phil. > > > > > > > Phil, where are you? Are you back yet from Barcelona? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tyky. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Thorpe > > > > > > > <thorpe@oss.com> To: xcbf <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > cc: > > > > > > > 03/29/02 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [xcbf] Initial drafts of all deliverables > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Tyky Aichelen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > > > Happy upcoming Easter to you all! > > > > > > > > It is is quiet out there! If we want to meet our stated deadline of May > > > > > > > 30 > > > > > > > > for "Initials drafts of all deliverables", we need to get going. > > > > > > > > When is our mtg #2? To speed up, we may consider to meet in persons in a > > > > > > > > one-or-two-full-day session to agree on the skeletons of those initial > > > > > > > > drafts, and nail them down in writing. Once agreed and written down, we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > divide up the chapters writing work, assignable to each of us. This one, > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can do it, each at our own pace and location. > > > > > > > > I can be the host for our next face-to-face mtg, if you, folks, do not > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > traveling to IBM site in San Jose (Northern California). > > > > > > > > Does anyone have an alternative? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OSS can also host face-to-face meetings in Somerset, NJ, but I expected > > > > > > > much of the initial work to be done via email and conference calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am polling to see how many of us in XCBF are interested in quartely > > > > > > > > face-to-face working sessions and can travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem traveling when we do need face-to-face sessions. I will > > > > > > > wait for a response from Phil Griffin to indicate his proposed meeting > > > > > > > schedule in order to meet the deadlines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Tyky Aichelen > > > > > > > > OASIS XCBF TC member. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Prof John Larmouth > > > > > Larmouth T&PDS Ltd > > > > > (Training and Protocol Development Services) > > > > > 1 Blueberry Road > > > > > Bowdon j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk > > > > > Cheshire WA14 3LS Tel: +44 161 928 1605 > > > > > England Fax: +44 161 928 8069 > > > > > > -- > > > Prof John Larmouth > > > Larmouth T&PDS Ltd > > > (Training and Protocol Development Services) > > > 1 Blueberry Road > > > Bowdon j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk > > > Cheshire WA14 3LS Tel: +44 161 928 1605 > > > England Fax: +44 161 928 8069 > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > -- > Prof John Larmouth > Larmouth T&PDS Ltd > (Training and Protocol Development Services) > 1 Blueberry Road > Bowdon j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk > Cheshire WA14 3LS Tel: +44 161 928 1605 > England Fax: +44 161 928 8069 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC