[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
So Paul, are you voting to accept the proposed revisions to the public review comments to create a revised XCBF CS? Phil Paul Thorpe wrote: >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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]