[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] NetMeeting
Hi Tyky,
I can help anyone that needs it with the set up of NetMeeting. They can
contact me to arrange a time to test their connectivity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wed, 21 May 2003, Tyky Aichelen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> John,
> I personally don't think a paragraph by paragraph pass over the document is
> necessary, but if anyone feels strongly about it, please speak up and I
> would be willing to do it.
> Just a pass over the specific paragraphs and the specific approaches that
> we still don't have the consensus, so we can reach the final decision quick
> and move on without delay.
> I add now Netmeeting as topic in the agenda as you requested (Sorry, I just
> forgot it!). Yes, we can explore the use of Netmeeting from now on in
> addition to the telecon for greater productivity. We need to enlist a
> NetMeeting expert to help set everyone up. Any volunteer?
>
> Best regards,
> Tyky Aichelen
>
>
>
>
> John Larmouth
> <j.larmouth@salfo To: Tyky Aichelen/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
> rd.ac.uk> cc: xcbf <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: Re: [xcbf] An alternative proposal has been uploaded
> 05/21/2003 06:55
> AM
> Please respond to
> j.larmouth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tyky,
>
> I will be at the ITU-T buiding in Geneva 6pm Geneva time (which I
> *think* - hope - is the right time), and they have a high bandwidth
> Internet connection.
>
> So it is my intention to come in using Net2Phone, provided they do not
> have a fire-wall that stops me, but even Net2Phone is not totally free,
> so I may want to drop out and let others resolve the final decision.
>
> If I get blocked by a fire-wall, I will have to come in extremely
> briefly by ordinary phone, or do an MSN Messenger Chat with Bancroft or
> Paul Thorpe relaying between me and the telecon. (I hope that won't be
> necessary.)
>
> But as I said in my mail, I will go with any of the options if we can
> only get consensus, so you don't really need me. It people have
> specific questions or comments on my analysis (such as Ed's mailing that
> them to the list before Thursday evening UK time, just in case I
> cannot get through to the telecon.
>
> If you want to do a paragraph by paragraph pass over the document, then
> I strongly recommend using NetMeeting for that. This would cost us two
> weeks delay, but equally would give us two weeks for everyone to
> establish that they could use NetMeeting.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John L
>
> PS I did not see on your agenda discussion on the use of NetMeeting,
> which I requested.
>
>
> Tyky Aichelen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Team,
> > Re the subject: I would like for us all to jointly reach the decision on
> > this Friday telecon ( I had included it in the agenda), that way we all
> > know how broadly is the OK.
> > John: Count on you to call-in. Thanks for your hard work and all the
> > analysis you sent in.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tyky Aichelen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > John Larmouth
>
> > <j.larmouth@salfo To: Ed Day
> <eday@obj-sys.com>
> > rd.ac.uk> cc: xcbf
> <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject: Re: [xcbf] An
> alternative proposal has been uploaded
> > 05/20/2003 12:44
>
> > PM
>
> > Please respond to
>
> > j.larmouth
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > That is a good reason for staying with BASE64. And Phil quietly flipped
> > a bit when I proposed we dropped it, so I guess the "alternative
> > proposal" is dead.
> >
> > Back to the first proposed revision.
> >
> > Is that broadly OK?
> >
> > John L
> >
> >
> > Ed Day wrote:
> >
> >>>Is the reduction worth having? Here we have to examine where and when
> >>>BASE64 is applied in the first proposal (which mirrors the last proposal
> >>
> >>>from Phil, in this regard). It is applied ONLY to the octet strings
> >>
> >>>that contain X.509 certificates and X.509 certificate revocation lists,
> >>>and ONLY if the outer-level encoding is BASIC-XER, not if BER is used.
> >>>So it will produce a 30% reduction in a couple of octet strings that
> >>>will form a very small part of the total (verbose) XML document. The
> >>>gains are actually miniscule.
> >>
> >>
> >>Based on my experience with security specs, I know of instances where
> >>certificate revocation lists can be *very* large. So I think a 30%
> >>reduction is a big deal.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Ed
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> >>To: <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> >>Cc: <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:59 AM
> >>Subject: [xcbf] An alternative proposal has been uploaded
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>You will shortly get (or have already got) official notification from
> >>>the OASIS Web software that I have uploaded another document.
> >>>
> >>>This is an alternative proposal, based on NOT using BASE64.
> >>>
> >>>I want to discuss here some points related to the use or non-use of
> >>>BASE64, in order to allow an informed decision on which to progress to a
> >>> CS ballot.
> >>>
> >>>(BOTH documents are complete specifications that I personally am happy
> >>>with, and would vote YES on either. I do, however, as will become clear
> >>>below, prefer this second proposal, as it is much simpler and easier to
> >>>implement, loses virtually nothing, and does not require a revision when
> >>>EXTENDED-XER is approved.)
> >>>
> >>>It hung in the balance on our last telecon whether to use BASE64 or not,
> >>>with most people saying they did not really care, with the decision to
> >>>use it swinging almost entirely on the remarks from Bancroft and myself
> >>>that Phil, who left the meeting early, would be strongly pushing for
> >>>BASE64. That may well still be true. But a technical assesment
> follows.
> >>>
> >>>First, let us dispose of the "BASE64 armoured" concept. You will see
> >>>that I deleted that term from the text in both proposals. It is
> >>>meaningless when applied to an octet string value. A hex encoding of an
> >>>octet string value is just as much "armoured" as a base64 encoding. The
> >>>**only** difference is that the number of characters needed by base64 is
> >>>typically reduced by 30% from the hex character count. I repeat, this
> >>>is the ONLY difference for an octet string.
> >>>
> >>>The term "base64 armoured" CAN be legitimately applied to a character
> >>>string. This is actually its main value in EXTENDED-XER.
> >>>
> >>>The point here is that the rules of XML FORBID some characters in an XML
> >>>document, EVEN IF THEY ARE EXPRESSED USING THE XML-DEFINED ESCAPE
> >>>MECHANISMS. So if you want your character string (at the abstract level)
> >>>to be able to carry all ISO 10646 | Unicode characters, you cannot do it
> >>>using either the UTF8 encoding of the character nor using the
> >>>XML-defined escape sequences without violating XML rules. Applying
> >>>BASE64 to the UTF8-encoding of the character string value and then
> >>>UTF8-encoding the BASE64 characters allows that XML element to contain a
> >>>representation of ANY character string, without violating XML rules.
> >>>This is truly "base64 armouring". Typically, the size of the encoding
> >>>will be INCREASED by 30%.
> >>>
> >>>But to repeat myself, when applied to an OCTET STRING, base64 does
> >>>nothing that hex does not do other than reducing the verbosiuty by 30%.
> >>>
> >>>Is the reduction worth having? Here we have to examine where and when
> >>>BASE64 is applied in the first proposal (which mirrors the last proposal
> >>
> >>>from Phil, in this regard). It is applied ONLY to the octet strings
> >>
> >>>that contain X.509 certificates and X.509 certificate revocation lists,
> >>>and ONLY if the outer-level encoding is BASIC-XER, not if BER is used.
> >>>So it will produce a 30% reduction in a couple of octet strings that
> >>>will form a very small part of the total (verbose) XML document. The
> >>>gains are actually miniscule.
> >>>
> >>>(There is the small(?) point that XCBF and ANSI X9.84 - currently out
> >>>for public comment - are aligned in this area. If BASE64 is NOT used in
> >>>XCBF, it would be good to get comment to have it removed in X9.84 as
> >>>well, so that the two stay aligned.)
> >>>
> >>>Now, OK. But why not avoid problems with non-compatibility with X9.84
> >>>and stay with BASE64 for these two octet strings? What are the
> >>>disadvantages? They certainly exist.
> >>>
> >>>We have tried to say that the use of BASE64 is "in anticipation" of the
> >>>X.693 ammendment 1 that defines EXTENDED-XER. I think the text I have
> >>>given you is about as good as can be got in this area (see the footnotes
> >>>1, 2, and 3 in the first proposed revision and the text in 7.4.2 - use
> >>>the "View Print Layout" to see the footnotes).
> >>>
> >>>This "anticipation" is in itself a bit unsatisfactory, but the problems
> >>>are more serious.
> >>>
> >>>I want to draw attention to footnote 3, and to expand on it. Here is a
> >>>copy of that footnote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is in anticipation of the acceptance of Amendment 1 to X.693, which
> >>>makes provision for the use of BASE64 encodings. Formal use of this
> >>>amendment will require the outer level encoding to be changed to
> >>>EXTENDED-XER (see 7.4.3) and the addition of XER encoding instructions.
> >>> This will also imply that a decoder will be required to accept the
> >>>presence of XML DTDs, Processing Instructions, Comment, and accept and
> >>>ignore attributes such as xsi:type and xsi:SchemaLocation.
> >>><<<<<<<
> >>>
> >>>This footnote raises ambiguity on what is a conforming implementation to
> >>>this actual spec: is a conforming implementation required to conform to
> >>>BASIC-XER until the Amendment is approved, and then to EXTENDED-XER? I
> >>>think I have written the text in such a way that EXTENDED-XER is NEVER
> >>>used unless or until we produce a new version of the spec referring to
> >>>EXTENDED-XER rather than to BASIC-XER. Remember, the only reason for
> >>>wanting to do that is this minimal use of BASE64 in the current spec,
> >>>and alignment with X9.84 (which in my view has also probably got it
> >>>wrong!) But X9.84 will not get finally approved until after the
> >>>Amendment is in place, and the overheads of a full EXTENDED-XER encoding
> >>>(see below) are likely to be more acceptable there than in an OASIS
> >>>standard?????
> >>>
> >>>What are the overheads of saying that the outer-level is EXTENDED-XER
> >>>and not BASIC-XER? The above copy of the footnote summarises it. It is
> >>>importent here to realise that the primary raison d'etre for
> >>>EXTENDED-XER was to provide support for the mapping from XSD, and the
> >>>use of ASN.1 in conjunction with general XML/XSD tools. A BASIC-XER
> >>>encoding (in the absence of EXTENDED-XER encoding instructions) *is* a
> >>>valid EXTENDED-XER encoding, so for encoders there is no problem. The
> >>>problem is for conforming decoders. They are REQUIRED to accept DTDs in
> >>>the XML document (for example that define character entities to reduce
> >>>the verbosity of some XML documents), and they are REQUIRED to accept
> >>>and ignore random xsi:type and xsi:SchemaLocation attributes, and they
> >>>are REQUIRED to accept XML Proceeing Instructions and Comment wherever
> >>>XML permits these to occur (more-or-less everywhere). All this adds to
> >>>the implementation cost of an EXTENDED-XER decoder.
> >>>
> >>>Note that there is no option available in prospective ASN.1
> >>>standardisation to be able to include an encoding instruction to say
> >>>"BASE64" **without** the requirement for a decoder to accept these
> >>>additional options in the encoding.
> >>>
> >>>So the real issue is not so much which spec we decide to approve now,
> >>>but rather where we intend to progress after that. We can:
> >>>
> >>>a) Use the alternative proposal (no use of BASE64), and be finished and
> >>>simple, but not (currently) X9.84 compatible, and **very** marginally
> >>>more verbose; or
> >>>
> >>>b) Use the first proposed revision and never move formally to
> >>>EXTENDED-XER, accepting that we will be doing a "special" for our
> >>>encodings, albeit a "special" that tool vendors that have imnplemented
> >>>EXTENDED-XER can easily support, because all it means is an EXTENDED-XER
> >>>encoder (to recognise the [XER:BASE64] syntax) and a decoder with lots
> >>>of functionality that should never get used. (In this case, the first
> >>>of my "proposed revision" documents could probably remove all text about
> >>>"anticipation" and EXTENDED-XER, and just openly admit it is a
> >>>non-standard encoding that we are requiring).
> >>>
> >>>c) Use my first proposed revision, and then produce a new version that
> >>>formally says that EXTENDED-XER is to be used. This is what the current
> >>>text of the first proposed revision was targeting ("anticipating"), and
> >>>we should not need to change that text for this option, but XCBF
> >>>decoders would have a harder job in the long-term.
> >>>
> >>>The only disadvantage of a) is that it may not be X9.84 compatible,
> >>>unless X9.84 is changed on public comment. Does that matter? Can X9.84
> >>>be changed to align with a)? There are NO technical disadvantages with
> >>>a), as explained above.
> >>>
> >>>The only disadvantage of b) is a "special" encoding, but one that is
> >>>probably fairly easy for tool vendors to support. This may or may not
> >>>be X9.84 incompatible, depending on whether X9.84 is clarified to say it
> >>>really means EXTENDED-XER, or whether it is clarified to say it is this
> >>>"special" encoding with BASIC-XER. (Like the text I inherited, X9.84 is
> >>>utterly ambiguous in this regard at present.)
> >>>
> >>>The disadvantages with c) are: The potential confusion in the
> >>>"anticipating" concept, and in a second OASIS spec that says
> >>>EXTENDED-XER when the first said BASIC-XER; The extra complexity of
> >>>requiring decoders to suppotr the full range of additional encodings
> >>>(DTDs, comment, etc) of EXTENDED-XER in the long-term.
> >>>
> >>>I am sorry this has been such a long "essay". I believe what I have
> >>>said is factually correct, but there are clearly subjective judgments to
> >>>be applied.
> >>>
> >>>The bottom-line is that I will personally go for any of a) to c), we
> >>>just need a decision.
> >>>
> >>>John L
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> >>
> >>
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/members/leave_workgroup.ph
>
> >
> >
> >>p
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]