Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot

[Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com>]

Hi Phil,

I would also like to see the XCBF standard go forward, but also believe,
like John, that there may be a delay due to the need to reference X.693,
Amd. 1 for the BASE64 stuff.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Thorpe                                 Toll Free    : 1-888-OSS-ASN1
OSS Nokalva                                    International: 1-732-302-0750
Email: thorpe@oss.com                          Tech Support : 1-732-302-9669
http://www.oss.com                             Fax          : 1-732-302-0023

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Phillip H. Griffin wrote:

> John,
> 
> Unless members of XCBF at least vote,  the reason for us to
> expend any further effort on this task is not clear. The value
> of doing so is altogether a different issue, and to me is
> obvious.
> 
> John Larmouth wrote:
> 
> > I am afraid these remarks may sound anti-American.  They are not 
> > intended to be.  They are simply comments from someone working on 
> > international and open standards, rather than on closed US-only 
> > standards.
> >
> > X9.84 is a closed US-only standard (I will refrain from making nasty 
> > remarks about who rules the world - whoops, I said it!) and I do not 
> > have access to it.
> 
> X9 is the US TAG  for ISO TC68, an open international standards
> body. TC68 coordinates with ISO/IEC JTC1 SC27, and has liaison
> agreements with other bodies, such as ETSI for example. It is quite
> likely that X9.84:2003 will be submitted to ISO, as the work it
> replaces is already being referenced in a couple of international
> standards body proposed NWIs. And financial services is a
> particularly important market for security standards and products.
> 
> >
> > OASIS is, at least nominally, a world-wide, open, public consortium, 
> > although it is dominated by the US - but so are many *ISO* committees!.
> >
> > I therefore have two questions:
> >
> >     a)    Is the text of X9.84 identical (in all respects, or not) to 
> > the proposed text of the OASIS XCBF?  (I actually do not know.)
> 
> No. XCBF could be considered but a subset of X9.84. But the
> same person wrote the schemas, text and generated the examples.
> And X9.84:2003 references normatively XCBF, as XCBF does
> X9.84. The stated goal in our TC charter was to coordinate the
> schemas and the cryptographic processing with XCBF and some
> X9 work, and to provide a correct and standard mapping from
> BioAPI to provide a secure XML representation of BIR values.
> 
> >
> >     b)    And second, surely OASIS provides an international standard 
> > (lower-case "i" and "s") where ANSI X9 **does not**, and hence an 
> > OASIS Standard is worth proceeding with?  (I am aware that there are 
> > moves to try to standardise X9.84 in IOS/IEC/JTC1/SC27, but that 
> > standardisation will be a long way off.)
> 
> I posess no means of measuring who's on top of the standards world.
> But I do view both organizations as important. Otherwise, I would not
> bother to do work in them. The primary benefit to progressing the XCBF
> work in OASIS is that it is open, the work freely available, and the TC
> is part of an organization that is doing important work that I do not see
> going on elsewhere - XCBF is innovative, and X9 provided us with a
> schema, but readily adopted our processing and schema changes.
> 
> And as you pointed out in an earlier post, there is a communcation process
> between OASIS and ITU-T - note tha Dr. Gerome is our liaison to SG17,
> and has expressed an interest in making use of a completed XCBF
> standard in that venue.
> 
> Phil
> 
> >
> > John L
> >
> >
> > Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> >
> >> Just to clear things up for all members, especially for those
> >> of you who voted long ago on this item, the current issue
> >> under ballot is the following:
> >>
> >> So far I have four votes to accept this motion, and Ed's vote
> >> just now, which I believe is to reject this motion. No other
> >> members cast a vote.
> >>
> >> So the motion to accept the proposed public review comment
> >> revisions has failed to pass ballot. And our original CS document
> >> stands - though it is now no longer in synch with X9.84:2003, as
> >> all of the proposed revisions were accepted and incorporated
> >> into that work.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in any suggestions as to how the group would
> >> like to move forward. Should we consider our work completed
> >> with publication of our initial CS?
> >>
> >> Does anything more remain to be done?
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Attached with revision bars showing are all changes made as a
> >>>> result of the public comment review.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please take a look at these changes and send a note to the list
> >>>> if you accept these as our new Committee Specification 1.0 as
> >>>> soon as possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Upon acceptance, I will try to move the process forward and
> >>>> have our work considered by OASIS as an OASIS Standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>