Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot

[Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com>]

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

> So Paul, are you voting to accept the proposed revisions
> to the public review comments to create a revised XCBF
> CS?
> 
> Phil

Yes, but to delay putting it forward as an OASIS standard.

Paul

> 
> 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
> >>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>