Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:05:17 AM	Welcome Monica
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:05:19 AM	Hello.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:05:28 AM	We'll wait just a few minutes to get started. Monica Martin should be joining us as we just finished our first Security JC call.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:05:36 AM	Monica here
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	11:05:37 AM	8 of us
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:05:43 AM	I trust that everyone has the input document?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:05:48 AM	Yes
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	11:05:51 AM	yes
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:05:52 AM	Yup
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:05:52 AM	yes
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:05:54 AM	Yes
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:06:06 AM	Yes
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:06:18 AM	Who would like to put it on the screen (share it)?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:06:35 AM	OK. Please look at the X9.84 and BioAPI 1.1 Interoperability section. And yes, Paul please put it on the screen
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:06:41 AM	Do we have a new agenda?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:07:07 AM	No agenda other than what I posted with this document.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:07:55 AM	I will create minutes starting with the minutes from the last meeting.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:08:21 AM	Right away, I'd like to ask Paul to please take minutes once again, and to post the meeting log as well.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:09:12 AM	The section "X9.84 BiometricSyntax" is first and I'll ask if there are any major concerns here.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:09:27 AM	I must have saved the input document to the wrong directory. Can someone else share it?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:10:30 AM	OK. I will try to share.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:10:42 AM	I selected share - what else is required for you to see it?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:11:02 AM	The BioAPI Signature field must be ignored - Agreed
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:11:17 AM	Paul, I've clicked on share for this file but I'm not sure how to tell if it's working.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:11:29 AM	It is working
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:11:47 AM	As long as you don't have any windows in front of it, we can see it.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:12:03 AM	Who currently is owner of the document?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:12:13 AM	Too many of us sharing!
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:12:24 AM	I'll unshare.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:12:36 AM	I've unshared too
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:12:45 AM	Please wait
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:12:51 AM	John, have you got the doc
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:12:53 AM	who is currently owner of the document?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:13:21 AM	I've also unshared.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:13:21 AM	Welcome Paul Gerome
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:13:46 AM	I suggest that ownership should be with the person sharing the file. They can then distribute an changed version.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:13:54 AM	Paul Gerome has joined now.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:14:03 AM	That means everyone has unshared.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:14:21 AM	I will try to share again so that I can make changes
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:14:25 AM	Please select someone to "own" and "share" the document
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:14:29 AM	thanks phil
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:15:20 AM	I am getting no shares
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:15:32 AM	Don't see the document. Anyone else?
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:15:44 AM	Aha!
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:15:55 AM	Phile has some windows open over the document.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:16:12 AM	Is anyone getting someone else's shared document?
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:16:32 AM	Getting window and awaiting document.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:16:37 AM	I am getting Phil's
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:17:06 AM	I am getting it too
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:17:42 AM	It is the same doc sent yesterday. No changes. See X9.84 BiometricSyntax section
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:18:02 AM	My main comment on the clause Phil mentioned is that (apart from the ASN,1) it is largely tutorial, but it is not clear what "corresponds closely to" means.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:18:14 AM	Any comments on this section? Note that just above that BioAPI has been approved as an ANSI standard.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:19:07 AM	Suggest we provide itemized bullets for the different types of biometric information so it is clearly understood what they are.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:19:08 AM	John it is meant to mean "not equivalent" but close
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:19:28 AM	Yes, but shouldn't we spell out the differences?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:19:31 AM	MM what do you mean, "types"
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:19:55 AM	JL That is what each following section attempts to do
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:19:58 AM	Just that we should bullet out and provide a description of the four possible formats for biometric information.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:20:04 AM	And what is the purpose of this clause? Are we putting it in in order to map X9.84 into the BioAPI BIR?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:21:07 AM	MM Agree text needed here or preceeding this section. But note that the other choices all use this BiometricObject
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:21:18 AM	Understood.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:21:31 AM	JL No, the idea is to map BIR to BiometricObject
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:21:36 AM	Unterstood
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:21:51 AM	Either way, the purpose needs to be made clear.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:22:29 AM	MM Will you craft a paragraph describing each choic and end it with a line that we will discuss only the unprotected BiometricObject in this section.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:22:55 AM	The heading is simply X9.84, but the text refeferences BioAPI.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:22:57 AM	I can craft as much as I have in the document, but may need some descriptors from you technical folks.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:22:58 AM	JL Agree. This is a start. Please after the meeting, submit text to me or to the list for discussion.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:23:40 AM	General: How about let's agree right away that all comments will
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:23:50 AM	Provided this chat is output from the meeting, that is sufficient to minute my comments.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:24:02 AM	be in the form of an edited version of my draft with edit changes shown
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:24:24 AM	Can we move to section X9.84 BiometricObject?
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	11:24:38 AM	MM, descriptors? Mapping means merging the 2 C code together?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:24:49 AM	Use of Word COMMENT may be better, unless there is actual new text
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:24:54 AM	I have documented that I will provide a paragraph in this section that describes the different formats of biometric information. I may solicit input from the team on technical desriptions.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:25:21 AM	MM Great!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:25:28 AM	Phil has a window over his shared window, I think.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:25:38 AM	I am not getting the whole window
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:25:43 AM	Phil, Please move you chat window to the side more
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:25:45 AM	thanks
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:25:52 AM	Jonhn is that better?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:26:02 AM	Not yet.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:26:11 AM	Ah! OK now
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:26:12 AM	Now?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:26:20 AM	Just went back again!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:26:34 AM	Wait a mo for things to sync
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:26:49 AM	Good
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:26:50 AM	OK now.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:26:56 AM	Let's look now then at "X9.84 BiometricObject"
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:27:16 AM	We were. surely???
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:27:33 AM	Comments on this section?
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:27:53 AM	Can nothing be done with signature? Some sort of default?
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:27:54 AM	Definition of object in this context requested?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:28:39 AM	No, Ed. It's impossible to understand the content of the BioAPI Signature field
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:28:43 AM	ED We do not own signature in BIR and their standard says they may define a struct one day
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:29:06 AM	BioAPI refused to standardize signatures
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:29:13 AM	Can we at least give a broad definition of an object as Paul G asked?
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:29:34 AM	Object is simply a data record
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:29:45 AM	John, want to tell us what an object is? You're the only one who speaks English ;-)
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:29:53 AM	Add that definition.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:29:55 AM	But instead of ignoring it, can't we use it with some OID for an "unknown" algorithm etc?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:30:26 AM	OK Object is a "data record", a logical piece of biometric information?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:30:42 AM	I really don't like that
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:30:49 AM	It is too unspecific
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:31:00 AM	Provide context, John.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:31:11 AM	So: a BIOMETRIC OBJECT is simply a data record taken from a bio source
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:31:16 AM	JL "object" is meant to be unspecific in this context I think
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:31:45 AM	If we look at what the X9.84 object actually is, it is a digitisation of one or more biometric properties and associated information
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:31:46 AM	PG A biometric object may be either a template or a sample.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:32:15 AM	Here is what I have so far: An object is a data record taken from a biometric source or a logical piece of biometric information. A biometric object may either be a template or a sample.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:32:19 AM	Thanks, Phil!
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:32:24 AM	Not only that
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	11:32:26 AM	JL, Why not? it is a XML SOAP object which contain a unit of info readily manipulable by applications and transportable via Web
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:32:27 AM	JL That is true. The header is really a set of associated attributes that belong with the opaque data
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:32:45 AM	It is .... plus additional information about the purpose, the quality, etc.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:33:23 AM	Now...An object is a data record taken from a biometric source or a logical piece of biometric information. A biometric object may either be a template or a sample. The header is a set of associate attributes that belong with the opaque data, and can include additional information about the purpose, quality, etc.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:33:42 AM	I think we need not define "object"
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:34:01 AM	We should have a glossary or a reference.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:34:11 AM	What we want is a definition of "biometric object" that fits the information content in the X9.84 BiometricObject type
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:34:16 AM	Far out! I agree with MM
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:34:27 AM	JL I think that we might elsewhere, say in a glossary
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:34:43 AM	So I should add a Glossary section?
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:34:58 AM	Oh, definitely!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:35:10 AM	A definition of "biometric object" (rather than a glossary) is more important than a definition of "object"
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:35:14 AM	May want to consider if it is a separate document, appendix or included in the specification.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:35:24 AM	Absolutely agree with John
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:35:30 AM	Let's agree that I will add a Glossary section and that Monica's suggested def will be its first entry
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:35:54 AM	AT I do too. Biometric is key here.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:35:58 AM	I think there are an awful lot of terms defined in X9.84, and this may be one of them,
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:36:07 AM	JL Agree.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:36:17 AM	Here is what I have so far.....An biometric object is a data record taken from a biometric source or a logical piece of biometric information. A biometric object may either be a template or a sample. The header is a set of associate attributes that belong with the opaque data, and can include additional information about the purpose, quality, etc. This must be in line with the information content in X9.84 BiometricObject type.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:36:36 AM	Whittle away folks.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:36:54 AM	MM Let's start with that and whittle on the mailing list
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:37:01 AM	Perfect as a first draft, thanks to all for superb efficiency!
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:37:03 AM	Not just a sample, it may be a few samples
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:37:07 AM	OK
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:37:22 AM	AT you are very right!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:37:23 AM	This definition introduces two new concepts: template and sample, which need definition. I really think that we should base things on importation (byr reference) of the X9.84 defintions
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:37:44 AM	I agree
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:37:52 AM	I would say "represents a template or samples" not "is a"
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:38:23 AM	OK. Can we now look at the "X9.84 BiometricHeader" section?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:38:29 AM	We have moved a long way form the clause we were discussing
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:38:33 AM	A biometric object is a data record taken from a biometric source or a logical piece of biometric information. A biometric object may represent either a template or a sample(s). The header is a set of associate attributes that belong with the opaque data, and can include additional information about the purpose, quality, etc. This must be in line with the information content in X9.84 BiometricObject type.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:38:53 AM	Tyky has dropped out.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:38:56 AM	what about "STAND FOR", so it is compliant with the classic definition of a "sign" in Semiotic Studies
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:39:00 AM	As an aside, can we please have clause and paragraph numbers on documents in the future? It makes discussion so much easier.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:39:21 AM	Where would you like STAND FOR, Paul G.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	11:40:09 AM	I was editing on ED "represent"
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:40:18 AM	OK.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:40:21 AM	Monica, it appears you are keeping a record of proposed text? Would you like to share your application?
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:40:41 AM	I type faster than the screen refreshes.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:40:54 AM	If you wish, I can.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:41:01 AM	It is still useful to see the record.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:41:13 AM	OK, Phil G unshare so I can share.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:41:20 AM	Let's finish this item. The def that MM has can be placed in a new glossary section for further discussion
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:41:24 AM	NO!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:41:38 AM	I was not intending to be that disruptive. Surely two can share?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:41:49 AM	There is no need for Phil to unshare while you share.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:41:55 AM	OK.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:42:53 AM	You just need to have the item you are sharing visible on your screen
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:42:54 AM	AT Do you agree that I've cut and pasted the correct definitions for types and structures from BIR and X9.84 into this draft?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:43:25 AM	I agree
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:43:42 AM	I noticed that you have made several changes to the ASN.1 modules
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:43:55 AM	AT If you find ANY out of whack in the doc, please send me a note
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:44:09 AM	I shared and allowed control but don't know if anyone sees it.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:44:14 AM	OK
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:44:21 AM	No need to allow control
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:44:27 AM	That does not work well
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:44:28 AM	OK.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:44:34 AM	I suggest it is better not to allow control
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:45:01 AM	AT I've changed the modules as part of a revision of X9.84 that is now active in X9F4. I've posted the latest in this draft.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:45:04 AM	Revised control.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:45:52 AM	The original X9.84 did not have an extensibility ellipsis.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:46:04 AM	Are there any interworking issues between version 1 and 2?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:46:48 AM	JL ... where?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:47:09 AM	Where you added the PHG items
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:47:38 AM	I am very happy with those changes
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:48:39 AM	I was not contesting the changes, just asking for clarification on whether version 1 had been implemented, and if interworking with version 2 was important.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:48:56 AM	We are not aware of any current implementation of version 1
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:49:00 AM	Phil, what page and reference to PHG is under discussion?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:49:26 AM	Reply to AT: End of problem
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:49:55 AM	MM In the ASN.1 where I added new biometric types and a few other changes.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:50:04 AM	But we need to get extensibility markers into this new version.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:50:11 AM	OK X9.84 BiometricHeader section
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:50:51 AM	JL Make suggestions to the list on any extension markers you would propose. I can get them in now that I've got a revision process approved.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:50:54 AM	Roll your screen up, Phil
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:51:39 AM	Positioning of extension markers needs serious subject knowledge and discussion. Of course, we could try for EXTENSIBLE EVERYWHERE
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:52:34 AM	My text in this section at the end especially is weak
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:52:37 AM	what purpose do they serve for XER or DER encoding?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:53:14 AM	Extensibility markers affect the behaviour of version 1 systems, not just the encodings.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:53:33 AM	It is a question of ignoring added material or diagnosing an error.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:53:49 AM	For security reasons, it is best to be specifi on when stuff should be ignored.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:53:52 AM	John. Please discuss extension markers on the mailing list, not on net meeting.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:54:14 AM	Please look at the X9.84 BiometricHeader section
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:55:22 AM	Any comments on this section? the BIR or the ASN.1 OK?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:55:31 AM	Phil Please roll your screen up and back down to refesh the display.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:55:54 AM	thanks
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	11:56:17 AM	They seem to be OK, but I cannot do a comparison with the BioAPI spec right now
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	11:56:48 AM	The hour is almost up.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:57:04 AM	Quickly then, on to DataType
Ed Day	6/13/2002	11:57:05 AM	Are X9-84 types that are used open to debate or is this just a discussion of existing BioAPI -> X9.84?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:57:06 AM	I am very unclear what is the purpose of this text.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:57:43 AM	Are we trying to justify that the X9.84 format is the better of the two? Or are we simply doing an impartial comparison, or what?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:58:01 AM	Ed, the type definitions are far easier to modify in a revised standard than to change the type.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:58:17 AM	The BIR effectively contains length determinants explicitly (as is normal in bits and bytes protocols).
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:58:29 AM	That is not an error. Just a different way of presenting things.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:58:37 AM	JL Please suggest any replacement text.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:59:00 AM	JL The signature field is not presented in the length.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	11:59:25 AM	JL this makes concatenation of BIRs in a stream difficult
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	11:59:34 AM	PG: That is not an issue - see my earlier ASN.1 for the BIR.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	11:59:50 AM	Tyky has rejoined
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:00:04 PM	Wrappers can always be put round anything.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:00:04 PM	Can we look quickly at DataType
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:00:18 PM	Hi Phil,
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:00:29 PM	Was this to be a 1 or 2 hr meeting?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:00:35 PM	If you want to concatenate binary encodings that are not self-delimiting, of course you need wrappers.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:00:39 PM	Notice that the encrypted and signed flags are not mapped to X9.84
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:01:10 PM	Paul, I thought that it was to be 2 hours.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:01:27 PM	Ok. That is what I thought also.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:01:33 PM	I see no reason to include the enumeration values in the ASN.1. It just adds confusion.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:01:38 PM	DataType folks?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:01:49 PM	Delete the (0) etc
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:02:02 PM	JL you mean in the table?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:02:07 PM	And add an extension marker?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:02:27 PM	Yes, I think add the extension marker.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:02:36 PM	I don't think it is useful
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:02:46 PM	I mean in the ASN.1 that is on your screen.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:03:16 PM	I could envisage a "final" in a future version.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:03:33 PM	A template is Processed
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:03:53 PM	There is no further state beyond the state of a template
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:04:18 PM	I think there could well be a further state in the future
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:04:26 PM	Such as COMPRESSED.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:04:31 PM	By the way, I would prefer "state" to "data type"
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:04:37 PM	Or even validated, or whatever.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:04:38 PM	JL You mean to drop the values in the type definition? Absolutely not. Explicit is always best. And I agree AT's argument. There are no other possible states for a record to have.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:04:54 PM	To MM, on the old topic discussed earlier, when you requested tech support , I'll be pleased to input, when able
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:05:05 PM	Phil, what about State?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:05:13 PM	AT Me too, but the goal when this was written was to use BIR language
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:05:18 PM	Ha! I totally disagree with both those points, but move on if no-one else agrees.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:05:27 PM	It has moved away already
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:05:33 PM	Why put the values in when they are of no interest at the abstract level?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:06:06 PM	JL Programmers like to see as much information as possible.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:06:31 PM	I have forgotten what the XER encoding is: the numbers or the names?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:06:38 PM	NAMES
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:06:47 PM	It is names with < /> around them
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:06:55 PM	In which case the numbers should CERTAINLU be removed.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:07:23 PM	Phil is thinking DER. We are doing XER here.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:07:24 PM	JL In DER it is the numbers, not the names.
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:07:38 PM	I would agree. Programmers are used to enums without numbers unless needed for an out-of-order sequence.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:07:42 PM	Yes, but we are doing XER.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:08:03 PM	And the numbers are defaulted anyway to the values you giv e
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:08:11 PM	Re Programmers, I agree w/ Phil., a lot of more info is needed
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:08:11 PM	JL X9.84 does DER
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:08:13 PM	Keep it simple!
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:08:33 PM	JL Agree, simple. Explicit is simple.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:08:39 PM	The numbers are not needed for DER
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:09:00 PM	No. The numbers are an encoding issue, and add confusion at the abstract level.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:09:19 PM	JL, please argue this on the list
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:09:26 PM	We have to agree to disagree again.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:10:00 PM	JL. I'd value arguing this on the list. I consider it only a style issue.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:10:22 PM	Drop it for now
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:10:23 PM	Purpose section?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:10:37 PM	Phil, do you want to rename DataType to DataState?
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:10:44 PM	why can't the numbers match?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:10:47 PM	Again, I want an extensibility marker.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:10:48 PM	I cannot digest DataType
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:11:26 PM	Indeed, what do the numbers actually MEAN?
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:11:33 PM	I agree with AT , State is more pertinent here
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:11:35 PM	Get rid of them form the ASN.1!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:12:23 PM	What are we discussing? I think it is not on Phil's screen
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:12:28 PM	AT Argue for it on the list. I think "data type" is just about up there with "object". But I doubt that X9F4 will accept such a change, since the text "data type" is used in BioAPI.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:12:56 PM	Purpose
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:13:20 PM	My Q was in regards to Purpose. BioAPI and X.984 numbers don't match.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:13:20 PM	Are we trying to edit an X9.84 document, or an OASIS one?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:13:53 PM	JL We are trying to base an OASIS standard on two ANSI standards that we do not own.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:13:55 PM	What X9.84 might or migh tno accept is surely not relevant?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:14:41 PM	I agree with Ed - all else aside, the numbers need to be aligned. This is a typo.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:14:56 PM	Both ANSI standards will likely be proposed as and become ISO standards
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:15:04 PM	AT Agree with Ed?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:15:06 PM	Or is it a difference between the X9.84 encoding and the BioAPI?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:15:09 PM	Phil: When you added "enroll" upon my suggestion, we agreed to added it to the end
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:15:12 PM	"enroll": by its self is missing from the enumerated type.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:15:43 PM	PT Wuh?
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:15:48 PM	I think you have the wrong doc. It is number 6 on mine.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:15:52 PM	.....But since we are making changes to the document, it is no longer necessary that it go to the end
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:16:07 PM	If we have already added some enumerations, that strenghtens my argument for omiting numbers and adding an extensiblity marker.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:16:31 PM	AT Agree. Under a revision, if this group agrees I can add this in order and eliminate some confusion for all time. Agree?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:16:32 PM	Do we have to be compatible with the earlier version?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:16:34 PM	Tyky has dropped out again.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:16:39 PM	Yes Phil
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:17:02 PM	JL, when "enroll" was added, there was such a need
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:17:28 PM	Other things will surely get added.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:17:39 PM	Now it is no longer necessary
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:17:54 PM	You have to be joking!
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:18:02 PM	I agree with John
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:18:06 PM	If things are changed once, they will change again.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:18:19 PM	Add ... to the enumerated?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:18:24 PM	But let's m,ove on
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:18:33 PM	Hold!!! I was saying that it is no longer necessary that ENROLL goes to the end!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:18:42 PM	PT: For me, yes#
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:19:00 PM	Ah! I misunderstood you - sorry!
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:19:03 PM	AT? Add the extension marker to this one?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:19:10 PM	I suggest we do
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:19:32 PM	Tyky has rejoined.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:19:54 PM	If you are adding comment ...
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:20:11 PM	AT OK now?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:20:18 PM	... we ought somewhere sometime to indicate what a version 1 implementation should do with an added enumeration.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:20:33 PM	Probably some sort of error return.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:20:40 PM	Phill, Please roll up and back down to refresh the screen
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:20:48 PM	JL Only AT and I have implementations to the best of all knowlege
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:20:50 PM	Much better.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:21:25 PM	What does your implementation do if given an enumeration outside the listed set?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:21:43 PM	There is a typo: enrollIdentity instead of identify
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:21:53 PM	Sorry - ignore that comment - without the extensibility marker it is just a duff encoding/
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:22:10 PM	JL It throws an error right now. It will have to do otherwise
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:22:28 PM	Now we have added the extensibility marker, that is so.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:22:51 PM	Has Monica recorded that we need to specify version 1 behaviour at some stage?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:23:05 PM	Her screen has gone garbaged
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:23:14 PM	MM may have dropped out She had a meeting
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:23:27 PM	She is looking at Phil's screen (or was).
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:23:54 PM	Quality?
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	12:24:08 PM	I am here for a few more minutes and refreshed my screen.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:24:17 PM	Phil, you still have IDENTITY instead of IDENTIFY in several places
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:24:47 PM	Phil, you made the wrong change. should by identify, not identity
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	12:25:36 PM	I have specified that at some point we need to specify version 1 behavior, John L.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:25:41 PM	Look now. Correct? If not BIR wrong?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:25:50 PM	Thanks MM - I saw it.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:26:05 PM	Still wrong, Phil, in the ASN.1
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:26:24 PM	here?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:26:27 PM	Yes
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:26:49 PM	OK?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:27:00 PM	In column 1 of the table also
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:27:04 PM	I think it is still wrong in the table below
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:27:20 PM	It seems we are working with 2 standards with different fields or values sometimes. How about combine them both into the OASIS one, so nothing got left out
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:27:44 PM	OK
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	12:28:15 PM	I have to drop off in five minutes, and I will send my notes to Phil for use/integration/etc. Thanks everyone. Monica
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:28:20 PM	TA: I agree
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:28:34 PM	We need to consider what we are trying to do.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:28:47 PM	Any semantics in either needs to be in our result
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:28:48 PM	What do you mean by combine, Tyky?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:29:04 PM	But I believe that semantically, X9.84 has everything BIR has
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:29:36 PM	The problem comes when the encoding (which is what BIR is about) has things in a different order from X9.84.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:29:37 PM	Everything except the multiple factors, but this will be solved
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:29:46 PM	Combine means have a superset
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:29:49 PM	JL I hope that you will urge the UK to call for an alignment of these two ISO standards.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:30:08 PM	What ISO standards?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:30:27 PM	As far as I am aware, both BioAPI and X9.84 are purely US
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:30:40 PM	JL Both BioAPI and X9.84 will likely be proposed to ISO
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:30:43 PM	Tyky, I like the definition
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:31:01 PM	Quality?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:31:05 PM	To the same, or to different SC/TC
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:31:06 PM	s?
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:31:12 PM	if OASIS standards contain everything any Standard out there in the world need. That would be great.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:31:43 PM	JL Not sure yet. The new SC has been approved in JTC 1 for generic biometrics, but they are not to do security
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:31:46 PM	The last thing the world wants is three non-interworking standards with very similar functionality.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:31:53 PM	By the way, are you all aware that ISO has established SC 37 on Biometrics?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:32:07 PM	JTC1 SC37
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:32:18 PM	JL That is why X9.84 is being revised and wishes to incorporate the XER from this group.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:32:29 PM	Are any of us likely to get involved in the work of that SC?
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:32:50 PM	May we liaise with them?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:32:50 PM	JL I'll likley be a liaison
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:33:10 PM	PaulG We may try to do so.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:33:10 PM	Phenomenal!
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:33:24 PM	I suspect I could become a UK rep to that SC, with BSI funding for attendance ...
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:33:41 PM	Good John
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:33:42 PM	JL That woulfd be cool.
Monica Martin	6/13/2002	12:33:54 PM	Have to exit. Monia
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:34:00 PM	JL, to not have 3 non-interoperable standards means we need a superset one, that is from OASIS.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:34:01 PM	Bye Monica
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:34:02 PM	bye monick
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:34:08 PM	It would be travel only, and I have my time cut out on ASN.,1 stuff!
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:34:10 PM	JL They are just forming now and I do not believe that their mission is settled
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:34:37 PM	Let's discuss this off-line. I will put soundings out in BSI.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:34:53 PM	JL I'll send you the announcement of the SC.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:34:58 PM	Quality?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:35:02 PM	Does anyone know when the first meeting of the SC is?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:35:13 PM	JL Not set yet
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:35:18 PM	Irequest from Phil the info to be sent to me too if possible
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:35:24 PM	OK. Quality?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:35:47 PM	PaulG I'll send what I know to the XCBF list on the new SC
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:36:02 PM	thanks, Phil
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:36:40 PM	Quality comments?
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:36:44 PM	I'll inquire here in ISo main office in Geneva, as it is my base
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:37:09 PM	Extension marker here
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:37:18 PM	I think not!
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:37:23 PM	NO!!!!
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:37:25 PM	Right
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:37:28 PM	Do we really want an extension marker?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:37:40 PM	It is an integer
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:37:41 PM	I would prefer a subtype constraint -2..100
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:37:55 PM	No extension marlker
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:38:00 PM	It is there if Phil refereshes the screen.
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:38:07 PM	Re Quality, we can combine all fields
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:38:12 PM	But actually........
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:38:27 PM	Actually, other values may be added.
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:38:31 PM	I would say named numbers or range, but not both
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:38:31 PM	Why is there an unconstrained INTEGER there?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:38:58 PM	Phil, please page up and down to refresh the screen.
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:39:01 PM	Name numbers, that way more can be added in futures
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:39:31 PM	thanks
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:39:33 PM	TA: No, I thik the whole idea is a range form 0 to 100
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:40:05 PM	what about -1 and -2 ?
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:40:25 PM	JL Range won't work with INTEGER
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:40:40 PM	Hold everybody
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:40:42 PM	Hm. We need to specify that version 1 should treat values above 100 as simply higher values. In other words, positive values have integer semantics, even if extensions.
Tyky Aichelen	6/13/2002	12:40:43 PM	-1 -2 are signed INTEGER
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:40:59 PM	This is the original definition, and it is OK, there has always been an entension marker
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:41:21 PM	AT: I'll go along with that.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:42:00 PM	We just need text that version 1 systems should accept extensions and treat them as numerically higher quality for any comparisons that they do.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:42:00 PM	AT The extension marker was added after two BioAPI changes. One added -2, the other extended the range from 50 to 100 for highest. The marker was added defensively.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:42:30 PM	Yes. That is good
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:42:36 PM	Yes, Phil. Your screen was garbled before, and the line with the constraint was not visible
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:42:45 PM	Curiously
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:42:51 PM	AT Looked fine here ...
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:43:04 PM	But I think we might want to say that an extension to -3 should give an error response, whereas extensions above 100 always meen higher quality.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:43:30 PM	Ah! Record type
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:43:55 PM	JL Not sure I agree about >100 being OK.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:44:23 PM	JL I was thinking that the next changes likely to occur would be made using negative values
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:44:42 PM	PG: What other action would you like a version 1 system to take?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:45:01 PM	Any "special" additions can be made at -3, -4, etc.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:45:14 PM	JL Agree
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:45:32 PM	But my point is simply that we need to specofy the version 1 actions. We do not need to agree them today!
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:45:59 PM	JL OK
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:46:15 PM	Move on?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:46:38 PM	All. I regret that I must leave this meeting early. Personal family matter.
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:46:58 PM	RecordType - why not an enum or integer? this seems very complicated..
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:47:30 PM	Anything to minute before we end?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:47:30 PM	Soory for this. Let's discuss the points raised on the mailing list and try to progress them. When I return home, I'll post this revised document to the list.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:47:48 PM	Phil, before you go, anything we need to minute?
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:47:55 PM	Please minute John's remark about specifying behavior of v1
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:48:01 PM	All I have now is the attendees.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:48:24 PM	Please minute that we will add a glossary of terms
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:48:37 PM	I think that posting the CHAT - not as a document, but as ASCII text - in an e-maiol would be useful, to help us to comment on it.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:48:52 PM	Please minute that many items will be discussed on the mailing list
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:49:13 PM	JL Good idea. Paul, please do.
Phil Grifin	6/13/2002	12:49:19 PM	Bye
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:49:30 PM	What was John's item for the minutes?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:50:05 PM	Just that the CHAT should be sent as a text e-mail, to make commenting on it easier, not as a document.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:51:12 PM	As we have a few minutes left (and in the absence of our chairman!) ...
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:51:14 PM	I will try, but am not sure of the format
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:51:23 PM	... is the broad purpose of this document to
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:51:39 PM	a) describe the differences between BIR and X9/84
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:52:07 PM	and b) to reco9mmend an ASN.1 format that reconciles the two as best we can/
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:52:11 PM	Yes?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:52:36 PM	If so, then editing of the documnet becomes possible.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:53:08 PM	The rest of the document gives the rules for the translation
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:53:18 PM	In both directions
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:53:25 PM	No.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:53:29 PM	Not in both directions
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:53:44 PM	From BioAPI and form X9 INTO our format
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:53:53 PM	Anything else for the minutes?
Ed Day	6/13/2002	12:53:59 PM	he has sections describing both dirs
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:54:00 PM	Or maybe in all four directions?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:54:15 PM	I guess we might recommend extensions to the BioAPI?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:54:34 PM	Four?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:54:35 PM	Extensions to X9 seem to be in our dictat
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:54:55 PM	BioAPI to us, X9 to us, and the reverse of these equals four
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:55:35 PM	This is Tyki's superset.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:56:14 PM	I believe Phil just wants to update X9.84 to make conversions easier
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:56:25 PM	So .....
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:56:38 PM	.... what is the purpose of our document?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:56:39 PM	The same updated X9.84 will be proposed to X9 and there will be just one new X9.84, revised
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:56:53 PM	There won't be a third document
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:57:01 PM	Are we merely helping Phil provid the next draft of X9?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:57:06 PM	The old X9.84 will die
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:57:15 PM	So ....
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:57:19 PM	It seems so
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:57:24 PM	... why are we referring to it in our document?
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:58:24 PM	The current X9.84 will be abandoned as soon as the revised version will be ready
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:58:28 PM	I would prefer it if we assumed a (non-existant) X9.84 revised, and then worked on our own document comparing that with BIR, and suggesting our own document and the mappings.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:59:07 PM	What we are doing is revising X9.84
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:59:11 PM	For example, I think Phil will want numbers in enumerated in X9 revised. I would like them out in our document. But that does not affect interworking
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	12:59:26 PM	Please note that the next meeting is scheduled for June 28. Our time is up.
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	12:59:38 PM	Alessandro, if that is all we are doing, we are spending a lot of unnecessary time going about it.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	12:59:40 PM	AT, I hope we will do more than just that revision
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	12:59:58 PM	We will do more
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:00:09 PM	Then we need a clear initial target.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:00:22 PM	But the first step is updating X9.84 so that it is aligned with the BIR
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:00:45 PM	Maybe an initial step to agree and recommend revisions to X9 to update it and make it more compatible with BIR would be good
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:00:52 PM	But that should be an explicit first goal
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:00:56 PM	OPTIMAL SECURITY THROUGH TELEBIOMETRY: example for a target
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:01:31 PM	PG: Yes, we have lost sight of the security thread in recent CHAT
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:02:03 PM	Anyway, with no chairman, I guess someone should suggest that the meeting ends!
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:02:08 PM	VOLUNTARY SELF-AUTHENTICATION is the PR motto
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:02:26 PM	I heard Paul saying that
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:02:32 PM	for the new standard from oasis
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:02:45 PM	I mean Paul T
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:02:53 PM	I know
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:03:12 PM	Bye?
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	13:03:16 PM	I will forward the minutes and chat session to the list.
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	13:03:19 PM	bye?
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:03:40 PM	last call: comments for my contribution?
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:03:45 PM	Bye folks.
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:03:57 PM	Paul G, let's use the list
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	13:04:10 PM	We need an agenda next time also.
Paul GEROME	6/13/2002	13:04:10 PM	thanks; bye
Paul Thorpe	6/13/2002	13:04:11 PM	bye
Alessandro Triglia	6/13/2002	13:04:12 PM	Bye
Bancroft Scott	6/13/2002	13:04:22 PM	bye
John Larmouth	6/13/2002	13:04:27 PM	Gone!