[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [xcbf] vote of dr paul GEROME
I vote to accept these changes and approve this version of the
document as the OASIS XCBF CS.
Dr Paul GEROME
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
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Received: (qmail 7737 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 17:59:34 -0000
Received: from eday@obj-sys.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(0.6/8.0):.
Processed in 0.157386 secs); 20 Mar 2003 17:59:34 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits6 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO malone.intellispace.net) (160.79.145.141)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 17:59:34 -0000
Received: from objsys1 (66.9.62.72) by malone.intellispace.net (5.1.053)
id 3E70F8BB000EA90E for xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:06:45 -0500
Message-ID: <030901c2ef0b$9b501270$483e0942@objsys1>
From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
To: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Fw: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:07:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset"so-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Below is the original text from Objective Systems on the first ballot for
XCBF. Since there has been no resolution to this comment, Objective Systems
votes NO to progressing XCBF to the next stage until either the reference is
made available or removed from the list of references in the proposed
standard.
Regards,
Ed Day
Objective Systems, Inc.
REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
Tel: +1 (484) 875-9841
Fax: +1 (484) 875-9830
Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
http://www.obj-sys.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
> Objective Systems votes to approve with a reservation. The values
> 'CertificateSet' and 'CertificateReservationLists' are shown to be OCTET
> STRING's in the ASN.1 schema. Yet in the text, the comment is made that
> these shall be encoded in the markup using base64 encoding. This is not a
> valid way to encode OCTET STRING's under the X.693 XML encoding rules. A
> document is referenced - X.693 Amendment 1 (VXER) - which proclaims to fix
> this defect. But this document is not available for public review at this
> time. It is therefore not possible to produce an implementation that
> conforms to the schema as stated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Day
> Objective Systems, Inc.
> REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
> Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
> Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
> Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
> mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
> http://www.obj-sys.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
> To: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:58 PM
> Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
>
>
> > I have updated the documents for the CS Ballot starting
> > tomorrow and ending in two weeks. Please review the
> > files and send any comments to the list. And please vote
> > on the approval of the work as an OASIS Committee
> > Specification before January 21, 2003.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
Received: (qmail 6792 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 19:08:34 -0000
Received: from phil.griffin@asn-1.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-2.6/8.0):.
Processed in 0.174806 secs); 20 Mar 2003 19:08:34 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÒ.6 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 19:08:33 -0000
Received: from user-0c8hrur.cable.mindspring.com ([24.136.239.219] helo¬n-1.com)
by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 18w5Wb-0006Yp-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:16:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3E7A132F.4070200@asn-1.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:14:55 -0500
From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
Organization: http://asn-1.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ed Day <eday@obj-sys.com>
CC: xcbf <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
References: <030901c2ef0b$9b501270$483e0942@objsys1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ed,
Just to be very clear. You are voting NOT to accept the
proposed revisions (which address comments made in
the thirty day public review period) to the intial XCBF
CS document?
Or are you instead voting to accept those revision changes
to create a revised CS, but voting against progressing the
TC submitting a CS to OASIS for consideration as an
OASIS Standard?
Phil
Ed Day wrote:
>Below is the original text from Objective Systems on the first ballot for
>XCBF. Since there has been no resolution to this comment, Objective Systems
>votes NO to progressing XCBF to the next stage until either the reference is
>made available or removed from the list of references in the proposed
>standard.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Day
>Objective Systems, Inc.
>REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
>Tel: +1 (484) 875-9841
>Fax: +1 (484) 875-9830
>Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
>mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
>http://www.obj-sys.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
>To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
>
>
>
>
>>Objective Systems votes to approve with a reservation. The values
>>'CertificateSet' and 'CertificateReservationLists' are shown to be OCTET
>>STRING's in the ASN.1 schema. Yet in the text, the comment is made that
>>these shall be encoded in the markup using base64 encoding. This is not a
>>valid way to encode OCTET STRING's under the X.693 XML encoding rules. A
>>document is referenced - X.693 Amendment 1 (VXER) - which proclaims to fix
>>this defect. But this document is not available for public review at this
>>time. It is therefore not possible to produce an implementation that
>>conforms to the schema as stated.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Day
>>Objective Systems, Inc.
>>REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
>>Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
>>Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
>>Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
>>mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
>>http://www.obj-sys.com
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
>>To: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:58 PM
>>Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have updated the documents for the CS Ballot starting
>>>tomorrow and ending in two weeks. Please review the
>>>files and send any comments to the list. And please vote
>>>on the approval of the work as an OASIS Committee
>>>Specification before January 21, 2003.
>>>
>>>Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Received: (qmail 12330 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 19:25:33 -0000
Received: from phil.griffin@asn-1.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-3.1/8.0):.
Processed in 0.123398 secs); 20 Mar 2003 19:25:33 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÓ.1 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 19:25:33 -0000
Received: from user-0c8hrur.cable.mindspring.com ([24.136.239.219] helo¬n-1.com)
by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 18w5n3-00030r-00
for xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:33:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3E7A172C.9000009@asn-1.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:31:56 -0500
From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
Organization: http://asn-1.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Current Ballot
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
>
>
Received: (qmail 17163 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 19:31:02 -0000
Received: from j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-1.9/8.0):.
Processed in 1.651307 secs); 20 Mar 2003 19:31:02 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÑ.9 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO rhenium.btinternet.com) (194.73.73.93)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 19:31:00 -0000
Received: from host217-39-151-22.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.151.22] heloÊlford.ac.uk)
by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #23)
id 18w5s9-0004yK-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:38:42 +0000
Message-ID: <3E7A18BA.9010801@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:38:34 +0000
From: John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
CC: Ed Day <eday@obj-sys.com>, xcbf <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
References: <030901c2ef0b$9b501270$483e0942@objsys1> <3E7A132F.4070200@asn-1.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Whatever Ed replies to the e-mail below from Phil, I think we have a
difficult situation that I would very much like to have resolved. The
following comments may or may not be helpful in this regard.
The use of BASE64 is indeed part of Amendment 1 to X.693, not of X.693
itself.
That amendement (on currrent timescales - which I think *will* be met)
will become publicly available shortly after the next SG17 Geneva
meeting in early September.
With the best will in the world, there is nothing I can do (I think) to
change that formal position re ISO/ITU-T and the general outside world.
But OASIS is different - which may or may not help Ed and the
resolution of his comment.
OASIS has been long-established as a category A liaison to both ITU-T
SG17 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 (the two bodies concerned with ASN.1 work),
and so has access to the working documents for this amendment, which are
becoming increasingly mature.
These documents are available to all members of OASIS.
I agree that this is not quite the same as "public availability", and I
also accept that the documents are subject to change due to ballot
comments (and so will not be totally stable until Approval by ITU-T in
September). This is something that cannot be changed: until due
balloting processes are completed, nothing is fixed.
But I hope that these remarks may help in the resolution of Ed's comments.
I would add that it is normal in ISO to allow a document to proced to IS
when things it references are one step behind (still at DIS level). It
would not seem unreasonable for OASIS to adopt a similar approach when
referencing ISO and ITU-T documents.
John L
Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Just to be very clear. You are voting NOT to accept the
> proposed revisions (which address comments made in
> the thirty day public review period) to the intial XCBF
> CS document?
>
> Or are you instead voting to accept those revision changes
> to create a revised CS, but voting against progressing the
> TC submitting a CS to OASIS for consideration as an
> OASIS Standard?
>
> Phil
>
>
> Ed Day wrote:
>
>> Below is the original text from Objective Systems on the first ballot for
>> XCBF. Since there has been no resolution to this comment, Objective
>> Systems
>> votes NO to progressing XCBF to the next stage until either the
>> reference is
>> made available or removed from the list of references in the proposed
>> standard.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Day
>> Objective Systems, Inc.
>> REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
>> Tel: +1 (484) 875-9841
>> Fax: +1 (484) 875-9830
>> Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
>> mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
>> http://www.obj-sys.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
>> To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Objective Systems votes to approve with a reservation. The values
>>> 'CertificateSet' and 'CertificateReservationLists' are shown to be OCTET
>>> STRING's in the ASN.1 schema. Yet in the text, the comment is made that
>>> these shall be encoded in the markup using base64 encoding. This is
>>> not a
>>> valid way to encode OCTET STRING's under the X.693 XML encoding
>>> rules. A
>>> document is referenced - X.693 Amendment 1 (VXER) - which proclaims
>>> to fix
>>> this defect. But this document is not available for public review at
>>> this
>>> time. It is therefore not possible to produce an implementation that
>>> conforms to the schema as stated.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Day
>>> Objective Systems, Inc.
>>> REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
>>> Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
>>> Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
>>> Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
>>> mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
>>> http://www.obj-sys.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
>>> To: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:58 PM
>>> Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have updated the documents for the CS Ballot starting
>>>> tomorrow and ending in two weeks. Please review the
>>>> files and send any comments to the list. And please vote
>>>> on the approval of the work as an OASIS Committee
>>>> Specification before January 21, 2003.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
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
Received: (qmail 22159 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 19:43:03 -0000
Received: from j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-2.1/8.0):.
Processed in 0.274459 secs); 20 Mar 2003 19:43:03 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÒ.1 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO einsteinium.btinternet.com) (194.73.73.147)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 19:43:02 -0000
Received: from host217-39-151-22.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.151.22] heloÊlford.ac.uk)
by einsteinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #23)
id 18w63u-0007Sq-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:50:50 +0000
Message-ID: <3E7A1B93.3060008@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:50:43 +0000
From: John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
CC: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
References: <3E7A172C.9000009@asn-1.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.
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.)
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.)
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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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
Received: (qmail 23094 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 19:46:32 -0000
Received: from eday@obj-sys.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-0.4/8.0):.
Processed in 0.190705 secs); 20 Mar 2003 19:46:32 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÐ.4 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO malone.intellispace.net) (160.79.145.141)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 19:46:31 -0000
Received: from objsys1 (66.9.62.72) by malone.intellispace.net (5.1.053)
id 3E70F8BB000EF3AC for xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:53:43 -0500
Message-ID: <033c01c2ef1a$8c6e6b30$483e0942@objsys1>
From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
To: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
References: <030901c2ef0b$9b501270$483e0942@objsys1> <3E7A132F.4070200@asn-1.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:54:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset"so-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
I believe the 2nd paragraph describes it best.
Regards,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
To: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
Cc: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
> Ed,
>
> Just to be very clear. You are voting NOT to accept the
> proposed revisions (which address comments made in
> the thirty day public review period) to the intial XCBF
> CS document?
>
> Or are you instead voting to accept those revision changes
> to create a revised CS, but voting against progressing the
> TC submitting a CS to OASIS for consideration as an
> OASIS Standard?
>
> Phil
>
>
> Ed Day wrote:
>
> >Below is the original text from Objective Systems on the first ballot for
> >XCBF. Since there has been no resolution to this comment, Objective
Systems
> >votes NO to progressing XCBF to the next stage until either the reference
is
> >made available or removed from the list of references in the proposed
> >standard.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ed Day
> >Objective Systems, Inc.
> >REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
> >Tel: +1 (484) 875-9841
> >Fax: +1 (484) 875-9830
> >Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
> >mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
> >http://www.obj-sys.com
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
> >To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:48 PM
> >Subject: Re: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Objective Systems votes to approve with a reservation. The values
> >>'CertificateSet' and 'CertificateReservationLists' are shown to be OCTET
> >>STRING's in the ASN.1 schema. Yet in the text, the comment is made that
> >>these shall be encoded in the markup using base64 encoding. This is not
a
> >>valid way to encode OCTET STRING's under the X.693 XML encoding rules.
A
> >>document is referenced - X.693 Amendment 1 (VXER) - which proclaims to
fix
> >>this defect. But this document is not available for public review at
this
> >>time. It is therefore not possible to produce an implementation that
> >>conforms to the schema as stated.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Ed Day
> >>Objective Systems, Inc.
> >>REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
> >>Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
> >>Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
> >>Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
> >>mailto:eday@obj-sys.com
> >>http://www.obj-sys.com
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
> >>To: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >>Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:58 PM
> >>Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS Ballot
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have updated the documents for the CS Ballot starting
> >>>tomorrow and ending in two weeks. Please review the
> >>>files and send any comments to the list. And please vote
> >>>on the approval of the work as an OASIS Committee
> >>>Specification before January 21, 2003.
> >>>
> >>>Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received: (qmail 26838 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 20:10:06 -0000
Received: from phil.griffin@asn-1.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-3.6/8.0):.
Processed in 0.22061 secs); 20 Mar 2003 20:10:06 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÓ.6 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 20:10:05 -0000
Received: from user-0c8hrur.cable.mindspring.com ([24.136.239.219] helo¬n-1.com)
by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 18w6U9-0004iI-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:17:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3E7A219C.1030409@asn-1.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:16:28 -0500
From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
Organization: http://asn-1.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
CC: "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
References: <3E7A172C.9000009@asn-1.com> <3E7A1B93.3060008@salford.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received: (qmail 28017 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 20:28:21 -0000
Received: from thorpe@oss.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-2.8/8.0):.
Processed in 0.762364 secs); 20 Mar 2003 20:28:21 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÒ.8 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO fortress.oss.com) (66.146.12.63)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 20:28:20 -0000
Received: from fortress (fortress [192.168.2.1])
by fortress.oss.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2KKa9h5020127;
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:36:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com>
To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
cc: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk, "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
In-Reply-To: <3E7A219C.1030409@asn-1.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10303201231450.19834-100000@fortress.oss.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charsetì-ASCII
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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received: (qmail 685 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0000
Received: from phil.griffin@asn-1.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-3.4/8.0):.
Processed in 0.246783 secs); 20 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÓ.4 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0000
Received: from user-0c8hrur.cable.mindspring.com ([24.136.239.219] helo¬n-1.com)
by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 18w7Dn-0005df-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3E7A2CA9.6020303@asn-1.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:03:37 -0500
From: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
Organization: http://asn-1.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com>
CC: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk, "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10303201231450.19834-100000@fortress.oss.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetì-ascii; formatõowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received: (qmail 2007 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 21:02:45 -0000
Received: from thorpe@oss.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-2.8/8.0):.
Processed in 0.787484 secs); 20 Mar 2003 21:02:45 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hitsÒ.8 requiredŽ0
Received: from unknown (HELO fortress.oss.com) (66.146.12.63)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 21:02:44 -0000
Received: from fortress (fortress [192.168.2.1])
by fortress.oss.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2KLAZh5020220;
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:10:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Thorpe <thorpe@oss.com>
To: "Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>
cc: j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk, "[OASIS XCBF]" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Current Ballot
In-Reply-To: <3E7A2CA9.6020303@asn-1.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10303201310000.19834-100000@fortress.oss.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charsetì-ASCII
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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]