Re: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes

[Phil Griffin <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Olivier,

Thanks so much for the clarification below.
I think that improved communications will be
covered by John's getting the SC6 link set up
so that OASIS is on the distribution list of
the Secretariat.

Phil



DUBUISSON Olivier wrote:

> [I don't think I'm allowed to send mail to the xcbf reflector.
> According to my right to answer, I'll be grateful if someone could
> forward this answer on my behalf.]
> 
> Phil Griffin wrote:
>  >
>  > Thanks John,
>  >
>  > But we should probably ask Georges Sebek about this as well
>  > I think. It was Georges who requested that I help create the
>  > OASIS/SG17 communication process request document. And this
>  > exchange may be a broader SG17 issue.
> 
> I keep in touch with the SG17 Counsellor, but as far as
> communication of documents go, the Rapporteur has to be in the loop.
> 
>  > Recall that I spoke to the XML encoding of XCBF values at
>  > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/security/abstract-xcbf.html.
>  > I've asked but as yet had no response as to whether there is
>  > interest in the SG17 security group in reviewing the XCBF
>  > work. Doing so would also require an exchange of documents.
>  >
>  > Phil
>  >
>  > John Larmouth wrote:
>  >
>  > > I will consult with Olivier.  It may be that you are right, in which
>  > > case one of us will forward the next approved masters for the VXER/XCN
>  > > work to the XCBF list.
> 
> As far as ITU-T goes, the A.4 liaison creates a communication
> channel through which both OASIS and SG17 can inform the other
> about their latest developments. But this doesn't imply one
> organization sending all its working documents to the other.
> Communication of documents (whatever their level of approval)
> needs agreement (at least) with Q.12/17 (ASN.1) and the SG17
> Counsellor.
> 
>  > > Phil Griffin wrote:
>  > >
>  > >>There is a liaison between OASIS and ITU-T SG17
>  > >>(and your SC6? Did that one get approved?) that
>  > >>should allow these documents to be shared by
>  > >>members of the XCBF list.
>  > >>
>  > >>There is no need to wait for approval. And if you
>  > >>are really serious about XCBF being a primary customer
>  > >>for the work, I would think that you would wish to
>  > >>get feedback from the customers long before the ink
>  > >>is dry.
> 
> If customers want to comment, they can join the ITU-T just as they
> join OASIS.
> 
>  > >>John Larmouth wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > >>>Unfortunately there are two separate issues.  One is about keeping
>  > >>>people informed, and I have no objections to that.
> 
> This is the purpose of A.4.
> 
>  > >>>The second one is
>  > >>>about release of ITU-T and ISO Working Documents, and that is more
>  > >>>difficult.  Once the ITU-T approval is in place (hopefully no 
> later than
>  > >>>Jan of next year), the texts for XCN/VXER will become freely 
> available
>  > >>>as pre-published specs.
> 
> True.
> 
>  > >>>John L
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>>Phil Griffin wrote:
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>>>Ed,
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>>I agree that such work should not appear to be
>  > >>>>so secretive.
> 
> As an agency of the UN, the ITU is not (cannot be) secretive (to reuse
> your choice of words).
> Each standardization organization (including OASIS) has its own
> rules. And I wish for other organizations (not giving names) to be
> as open as ITU is. Please remember that we've always found a solution
> to any problem you've add (including funding of your trip to the
> conference you're mentioning above) in the past.
> 
>  > >>>>If as John has stated XCBF is a
>  > >>>>primary and important user of this technology
>  > >>>>then the XCBF list would be a good one keep
>  > >>>>notified of developments.
> 
> This is exactly the purpose of A.4 (which BTW can be downloaded for
> free from the ITU-T website) and we'll keep your group notified of the
> developments.
> 
>  > >>>>Also, there is still an asn1xml list hosted by
>  > >>>>OSS that seems to get little mail, and the ASN1
>  > >>>>list hosted by ITU-T. I'm on all of these and
>  > >>>>have seen no discussions of such work there.
> 
> The ITU-T ASN.1 mailing-list is not dedicated to technical discussions.
> It is used to keep people informed about the next meetings and what
> has been done at each meeting. I hope you've noticed that our
> meeting reports are regularly sent to that list. So again, I don't
> consider us as secretive.
> I agree that the ITU-T list could be more used, but I'm sure you
> know that we all try to do our best. As far as I am concerned, being
> both ASN.1 Rapporteur and leader of the ITU-T ASN.1 Project takes
> most of time (and I whish that other companies like France Telecom
> allow their employees to spend as much as time as I do on the
> standardization and promotion work).
> 
>  > >>>>On the ITU-T list noted above, I would also
>  > >>>>mention that OASIS has a communication process
>  > >>>>with ITU-T that was formed with XCBF and SG17
>  > >>>>specifically mentioned.
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>>Would it be possible for John or Bancroft or
>  > >>>>Alessandro or Paul, all of whom attend the SG17
>  > >>>>meetings, to volunteer to serve as liaison to
>  > >>>>XCBF? If so, I will gladly update the XCBF web
>  > >>>>page to note this liaison and this channel could
>  > >>>>be used to keep XCBF members informed.
> 
> It is not mandatory to nominate a liaison officer, but if, say,
> Alessandro agrees, I'll be happy to propose his name at the next
> SG17 Plenary.
> 
>  > >>>>Ed Day wrote:
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>>>>VXER - Variant XER - *will* provide a BASE64 transfer, but VXER 
> is not
>  > >>>>>>canonical
>  > >>>>>>
>  > >>>>>>
>  > >>>>>>
>  > >>>>>What is this?  There is no mention of it anywhere I can find on 
> the web
>  > >>>>>(this is also true of the XCN acronym used in some prior XCBF 
> e-mails).
> 
> XCN is, I think, mentioned at:
> http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/xml (or will be as soon as I come back from
> vacation).
> 
>  > It
>  > >>>>>seems that if you are going to be using these standards to 
> define new specs,
>  > >>>>>they should at least be published somewhere..
> 
> They will be in due time.
> -- 
> Olivier DUBUISSON (ITU-T Q.12/17 Rapporteur)
> france telecom R&D
> 
> DTL/TAL - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
> t: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - f: +33 2 96 05 39 45 - http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/
>