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

[John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>]

You need something substantial and understandable by non-biometric
experts for it to get real feed-back from the security group, I think. 
But I am sure Paul Gerome and his colleage from AULM would be happy to
encourage a review of XCBF within that group.

John L

Phil Griffin wrote:
> 
> 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/
> >>>
> >>>
> >

-- 
   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