Re: [Fwd: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes]

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

John,

At least we know that this will not get any more
complicated than it is now. Thanks for your efforts.
Maybe we can make the effort spent trying to forge
these two liaisons pay off.

Beyond the ASN.1 documents though, I hope you'll
ask Herb Bertine about chances of having the XCBF
work reviewed by his security group if there are
members there with an interest.

Phil


John Larmouth wrote:

> FYI.
> 
> John L
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> 
> RE: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes
> From:
> 
> sebek@itu.int
> Date:
> 
> Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:36:11 +0200
> To:
> 
> j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
> 
> 
> All, to be clear, ITU-T has no power on the SC 6 documentation and
> associated policy. The SC6 - OASIS  and ITU-T - OASIS relationships are
> independent and not governed by the same rules. What is to be clarified on
> my side is the status of documentation refered under the ITU-T rules but
> pertaining to a collaborative activity. I hope Herb may help me.
> Georges
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Larmouth [mailto:j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk]
> Sent: lundi, 19. août 2002 20:20
> To: Phil Griffin
> Cc: DUBUISSON Olivier; Ed Day; xcbf; Georges Sebek
> Subject: Re: [xcbf] SignedData Attributes - DigitalSignature Attributes
> 
> 
> That is not quite as settled as I had thought.  The ASN.1 work is
> collaborative, and unless the ITU-T half agrees to the release of the
> joint documents, they will not be sent from ISO.  This is still being
> discussed.
> 
> John L
> 
> Phil Griffin wrote:
> 
>>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/
>>>
>>>
>