Re: ASN-1 - XCBF Liaison?

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

I will try to find time immediately post-Somerset to summarise all the 
changs that are in the amendment,  and perhaps some of the less obvious 
features of the mapping from XSD.

It is just a case of finding time for it!

John L


Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> 
> 
> John Larmouth wrote:
> 
>> Phil,
>>
>> Three comments:
>>
>> First, I have total sympathy with providing the material to everyone 
>> on the XCBF list, as OASIS is already accepted as a class A liaison to 
>> both SC6 and to SG17, and the ammendment is clearly very relevant to 
>> the XCBF work.
> 
> 
> John, you and I worked hard on this together. But as you
> have pointed out before, we have yet to realize the fruits
> of our efforts.
> 
>>
>> (I have not checked, but if Jooran - SC6 Secretariat - did what she 
>> said she would do, Karl has for some time been on the distribution 
>> list for all SC6 mailings to National Bodies, and receives all outputs 
>> from our official meetings.  He should be in possession of all the 
>> London ASN.1 outputs, but may not have realised who to send them to in 
>> OASIS.)
> 
> 
> I just looked on the main page of the OASIS web site. After all
> of this time and repeated mention by me, they still do not have
> these liaisons listed on the page. Not interested? I doubt it. More
> likely just swamped for time and over whelmed by the growth of
> the organization.
> 
> I fear that you are right and that there is no distribution established.
> 
>>
>> Second, I would be a bit unhappy about posting to the XCBF list 
>> itself, as the archives are publicly accessible.  However, if you can 
>> give me a full list of all members of that list, I can post to them 
>> all individually, with the usual ISO and ITU-T "this is private 
>> material for use in developing the standard" notice on it. 
> 
> 
> John, I did not mean that the actual materials needed to be
> posted. I understand the copyright issues and the need to
> protect those rights. And even more important, I understand
> that you'd NEVER want someone to read working drafts
> and believe that they were fixed in stone. That would be
> misleading and a disaster.
> 
> What I had hoped for was a paragraph or two after each
> meeting. Maybe a paraphrasing of the minutes would help.
> Perhaps a spot of notation as example when relevant.
> 
>>
>>
>> **** If any of them are not prepared to accept that privacy statement, 
>> then I guess they should e-mail me (privately or to this list, as they 
>> wish) saying "please do not include me in the distribution". ****
>>
>> Third, we are now very near the next ASN.1 meeting in Somerset 
>> (starting Tuesday after Easter), and I believe it would be sensible if 
>> I did NOT send people the London output (which has changed a lot in 
>> technical detailed details, and could be confusing), but instead 
>> mailed the output from the Somerset meeting.
> 
> 
> Rather than the actual copyrighted output, how about a brief
> summary instead. If you are willing to serve as liaison, Bancroft
> is the chair of the Liaison SC and I am a member. We should be
> able to quickly get you approved if Monica agrees, and I'm pretty
> sure she would. That would help move us forward smoothly.
> 
>>
>> (Apart from editorial matters, this Somerset output will be the text 
>> going for ISO FPDAM ballot, and apart from mending actual errors 
>> detected during the FPDAM ballot, it will be the text to be approved 
>> by ITU-T and offered for ISO FDAM ballot.  In other words, give or 
>> take mending errors, it will be the final text of the amendment.)
>>
>> I will mail both the Ammendment for EXTENDED-XER and the new standard 
>> for the mapping from XSD.  I will not include the (immature) documents 
>> related to time types, nor the OID work, unless someone specifically 
>> asks for it.
>>
>> I await comments from yourself or from others on this list, but 
>> otherwise I will expect to get from you a list of members (or a URL 
>> where I can find their e-mail addresses), and will e-mail the Somerset 
>> outputs to all of them.
>>
>> I hope this will be a satisfactory resolution.
> 
> 
> Please consider summaries instead. It will keep us informed
> and eliminate the standards bodies having coniptions or them
> having to do anything about copyrights or distribution.
> 
> Anyone who wants more than that should attend the ASN.1
> meetings.
> 
> Phil
> 
>>
>> (I guess we should have set something like this up sooner.  The real 
>> problem is probably that the concept of the Class A liaison and the 
>> administrative things that would stem from that have probably not been 
>> fully understood on either side, and not fully followed-through.  Both 
>> you and I assumed that getting the Class A liaison approved was all 
>> that neeeded to be done.)
>>
>> John L
>>
>>
>> Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> I do not have a clue what you mean when you use the term
>>> "EXTENDED-XER". I can find no mention of this term in
>>> any of the ASN.1 standards that XCBF and X9.84 reference.
>>>
>>> You and your colleagues are apparently busy changing the ASN.1
>>> standards. But even though there are four XCBF TC members
>>> doing this work, none of you has bothered to tell the rest of the
>>> TC what these changes are and how they might affect XCBF.
>>>
>>> I believe that it was this failure of the ASN.1 insiders to disclose,
>>> this appearance of secrecy or back room dealings, that may have
>>> lead to Ed's no vote. I don't know.
>>>
>>> But I do know that the ASN.1 Standards editor agreed to Ed's
>>> request at the XCBF face to face meeting in Baltimore to disclose
>>> the VXER notation, and then did not.
>>>
>>> Maybe I erred as TC chair and should have insisted on a more
>>> formal arrangement with your ASN.1 group. But I'd like now to
>>> correct this situation.
>>>
>>> Would you or one of the others working on the ASN.1 standards
>>> agree to be the XCBF TC liaison to your group?
>>>
>>> This would require that you stop keeping important information to
>>> yourselves and start making reports, perhaps just a few notes to
>>> the XCBF list, when you make changes to the ASN.1 standards
>>> that impact the XCBF work.
>>>
>>> This would help the XCBF TC immensely and eliminate the recent
>>> surprise terminology and notation that keep coming up in your negative
>>> ballot comments.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> John Larmouth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that X9.84 is referencing EXTENDED-XER?
>>>>
>>>> John L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not what we agreed in the CS.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this would not be compatible with X9.84.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bancroft Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The crux of the problem that we are having lies around the fact 
>>>>>> that XCBF
>>>>>> is using Base64 as an encoding, but Base64 is not available in the 
>>>>>> current
>>>>>> version of X.693.  Given this, plus the fact that that only the
>>>>>> EnvelopedData and SignedData types carry certificates and CRLs, 
>>>>>> and that
>>>>>> even in these cases, the certificates and CRLs components are 
>>>>>> optional
>>>>>> (and in practice never used), it would solve all our problems if 
>>>>>> XCBF used
>>>>>> straight XER and/or CXER encoding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, I propose that we drop the use of (currently 
>>>>>> non-standard
>>>>>> in XER/CXER) Base64 in XCBF and instead stick to HEX encoding as 
>>>>>> required
>>>>>> by XER/CXER.  This would resolve the concerns that everyone, 
>>>>>> including Ed
>>>>>> Day, has voiced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bancroft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly
not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless
the subject contains the phrase "Hi John".

If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy
for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the
subject line of their first mailing to me.  Thanks.

    Prof John Larmouth
    Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
    (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
    1 Blueberry Road
    Bowdon                               j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
    Cheshire WA14 3LS                    (put "Hi John" in subject)
    England			
    Tel: +44 161 928 1605		Fax: +44 161 928 8069