RE: On Registries

Dear all,
Reading that discussion, I have a simple question.
I heard on one side that we want to include easily new algorithms to the web crypto, but on the other side that we want to go through W3C IPR review for any new extension.
Can someone explain how could we do that by maintaining a wiki on W3C website ? Where would the IPR review happen in that case ?
Regards,
virginie


From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
Sent: lundi 11 août 2014 03:55
To: Harry Halpin
Cc: Mark Watson; Mike Jones; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: On Registries


On Aug 10, 2014 6:43 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 08/11/2014 03:26 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > Considering no other WG has needed such a pointer, especially all
> > of the work in WebApps, I think such a pointer would be
> > counterproductive to the spirit of the spec process and ill-advised
> > in terms of spec maturity.
>
> What would you expect say, a developer who goes through the spec and
> notices that Curve25519 is not in the spec to do?
>
> Seems like a link back to where he could find a list of specs that the
> WG is working on in terms of algorithms could be useful to guide the
> developer to the right spec (ideally with test-suite that shows where
> it is or isn't implemented). Do you think there's an alternative?

Why ideally with a test suite? How is that any different from the main spec linking to a test suite? Or having one in-built? Why would algorithm extensions be expected to provide something the main spec doesn't?

>
> As much as I know we all enjoy new bugs asking for new curves when
> people read the spec and notice their favorite curve missing :)
>

I would rather solve real problems than deal with hypothetical strawmen.

Its the same situation as when a 'developer' reads the HTML5 spec and notices there's nothing about filesystem access. Or notes that there is no way to manipulate sound.

I have no objection to a wiki stating the PubStatus - WebApps has successfully done that for some time. What I object to is trying to shoehorn it into the spec somehow.

The maximal language that should be sufficient is "Additional specifications may define other algorithms."

Or split up the algorithms from the main spec, so that its obvious the relationship between the two.

> >
> > I appreciate your attempt to try to balance things, but again,
> > HTML5 has succeeded without a 'pointer to things that define
> > structured clone', or to 'specs which define canvas.getContext', or
> > to 'supplemental interfaces to the Window interface', all of which
> > are functionally equivalent to any such extensibility discussion.
>
> Perhaps more analogous,

No. Its not really analogous to that at all, in that their processing mechanisms - and effects on web developers - are nothing like the aforementioned extension points of HTML5.

> HTML5 also has a wiki for link relationships
> [1] - see "Types defined as extensions in the microformats wiki
> existing-rel-values page with the status "proposed" or "ratified" may
> be used with the rel attribute on link, a, and area elements in
> accordance to the "Effect on..." field. [MFREL]" [1]. I suspect this
> is something less formal is what Mike was aiming at with a "registry"
> but I agree a formal registry will be difficult to maintain.
>
>  Historically, XML-DSIG used URIs for algorithms to avoid the
> "registry" problem.

Great for XML-DSIG. Except its relevance to the Web and how the Web works is virtually nonexistent.

Among other things, its not an API, nor exposed as such. Nor does it affect things in the same way. The applicability of the decisions made there are equally nonexistent (and more akin to JOSE than HTML)

>
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/existing

> rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#linkTypes

>
>
> > On Aug 10, 2014 5:58 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Would the best way forward here simply be a pointer from the spec
> > to the web-page of the WG near the "Algorithm" so that authors can
> > check to see the status of algorithms that may not be not included
> > the main spec, such as Curve25519?
> >
> > Then the WG homepage's list of "extension specs" (with a clear sign
> > of maturity in terms of Rec process) serves as a "registry" (for
> > lack of a better term).
> >
> > While a bit more heavyweight than the wiki I suggested earlier, it
> > would satisfy I think Ryan's concerns about algorithms going
> > through process without thorough discussion and consensus from the
> > UAs and WG, and also Mike's concerns about where developers would
> > go to find algorithms they don't see in the spec and where UAs
> > could ask for them.
> >
> > Sound reasonable? A quick sentence or two added to "18.1.
> > Registered algorithms" pointing back to the WG homepage would then
> > be enough.
> >
> > cheers, harry
> >
> > On 08/08/2014 07:26 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> >>>> WebCrypto is a Web API.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no need for a registry for non-Web users. By
> >>>> definition, charter, and constituency, they do not exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> All that matters, for standardization, is what UAs do.
> >>>>
> >>>> If no UA is involved, then having a name registry only serves
> >>>> to put the Web as second class. On Aug 7, 2014 10:24 PM,
> >>>> "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You’re missing that user agents don’t have to implement
> >>>>> registered algorithms.  They’re free to exercise their own
> >>>>> best judgment.  If they weren’t, then you’d be on the side
> >>>>> of having required algorithms, which I know you’re not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the same way that registering new JWA algorithms doesn’t
> >>>>> hurt anything, registering new WebCrypto algorithms doesn’t
> >>>>> hurt anything.  But it can help.  There’s nothing to fear
> >>>>> there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>] *Sent:*
> >>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 10:18 PM *To:* Mike Jones *Cc:*
> >>>>> Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> *Subject:* RE: On
> >>>>> Registries
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we want to talk hyperbole, suggesting the W3C is akin
> >>>>> to fearing openness is right up there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every algorithm in WebCrypto represents a distinct
> >>>>> capability for the Web. Thus is, by definition, an API, no
> >>>>> different than Canvas.getContext is an API (
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting.html#the-canvas-element

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> )
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What scares me is individual UAs arbitrarily and
> >>>>> unilaterally adding new capabilities to the web, without
> >>>>> discussion and consensus of other UAs, which you have been
> >>>>> so gung-ho on for so long and so clearly, and which I can
> >>>>> only hope is an individual view and not current corporate
> >>>>> thinking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is the ONLY technical purpose a registry of allowing
> >>>>> arbitrary organizations to register new algorithms serves.
> >>>>> And expert review does NOT cut it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The registration of JWA/JWK affects no other
> >>>>> implementations, except for those that developers try to
> >>>>> exchange messages with. It is, by definition, safe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exposing a new capability affects every User Agent that
> >>>>> ever hopes to visit that site, and thus should absolutely
> >>>>> be treated with fear and trembling, because the Web does
> >>>>> not remove capabilities lightly. Suggesting such a site
> >>>>> would "only affect/support IE" or "Only affect/support
> >>>>> Chrome", which is what such arbitrary capability extensions
> >>>>> mean, is the very essence of a return to browser wars and
> >>>>> extinction through interoperability failure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:55 PM, "Mike Jones"
> >>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So why, exactly, was it OK for you to add algorithms to JWA
> >>>>> and JWK with a registry, when you would deny the same
> >>>>> ability to others for WebCrypto? Why does openness and
> >>>>> cooperation scare you so?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>] *Sent:*
> >>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:48 PM *To:* Mike Jones *Cc:*
> >>>>> Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> *Subject:* RE: On
> >>>>> Registries
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:38 PM, "Mike Jones"
> >>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We’re not talking about adding APIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right, I thought we had agreement that this was an API.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Without that agreement, I suspect there is nothing further
> >>>>> of fruit to come of this discussion. The points for why it
> >>>>> is, unquestionably, an API have been laid out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> We’re talking about algorithms.  That’s a much more
> >>>>>> restricted extension
> >>>>> space than the hypothetical one that you’re pontificating
> >>>>> about.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cryptographers are more qualified to extend that space
> >>>>>> than the W3C, the
> >>>>> WHATWG, ECMA, or you or me.  Let’s enable them do it,
> >>>>> irrespective of the organization in which they write their
> >>>>> spec.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cryptographers, as an abstract group/concept, are the
> >>>>> LEAST qualified of the groups you mentioned to write
> >>>>> browser APIs, to understand both the limitations and the
> >>>>> idioms of the platform, of the risks and the guarantees,
> >>>>> and of how the Web and Standards work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With all due respect to all parties, it's like suggesting
> >>>>> someone who specializes in Computer Aided Design to design
> >>>>> a C API. Very different roles and functions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they do so, its no different than me writing a spec for
> >>>>> cold fusion and hiding it under my pillow, because its just
> >>>>> a piece of paper.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It means nothing without the involvement of UAs, to
> >>>>> implement, to agree on things like IPR, etc. Any UA that
> >>>>> went and implemented such extensions ad-hoc would rightly
> >>>>> be called out as breaking the web, embracing, extending,
> >>>>> and extinguishing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can only encourage you to reach out to your counterparts
> >>>>> on the IE team and in WebApps to understand that none of
> >>>>> our organizations (and yeah, Moz, you too ;D) have their
> >>>>> hands clean in these matters, and that's precisely why we
> >>>>> are trying so hard to work together to ensure it does not
> >>>>> happen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A spec that blesses or condones such API extensions, rather
> >>>>> than condemning, is a step in the wrong direction for
> >>>>> standards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>] Sent:
> >>>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:33 PM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To: Mike Jones Cc: Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: On Registries
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you name any organization or individual, outside the
> >>>>>> W3C, WHATWG,
> >>>>> and ECMA qualified to extend the web by adding new APIs for
> >>>>> UAs to implement?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can easily reach out to Travis L. and co on your
> >>>>>> side, or to your
> >>>>> legal team, to better understand Microsoft's view against
> >>>>> exactly that, with respect to participation and
> >>>>> standardization that occurs in the WHATWG. Or you can look
> >>>>> towards the involvement in TC39 to better understand that
> >>>>> there is very much a split, in both organizations, as to
> >>>>> which party is responsible for developing and standardizing
> >>>>> which aspects.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That the IETF, or any similar organization, would and
> >>>>>> can responsibly
> >>>>> develop JavaScript APIs used by millions of developers,
> >>>>> without the involvement of UAs, is not a reality. The core
> >>>>> constituency is and has always been wherever the UAs are,
> >>>>> since ultimately no standard, draft, or spec is ever
> >>>>> meaningful until UAs sit down and implement it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the only registry that matters is what UAs do.
> >>>>>> Everything else is a
> >>>>> figment of a standards dream that doesn't exist, much like
> >>>>> the debacle of XHTML that lead to the formation of the
> >>>>> WHATWG to begin with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Put differently, interop is the only registry that
> >>>>>> matters. And the W3C
> >>>>> (and WHATWG) is where interop happens. A registry doesn't
> >>>>> make interop happen - it just documents the interop that
> >>>>> already happened. So does a Wiki. Or a PubStatus. Or
> >>>>> WebPlatform.org, MDN, MSDN, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:20 PM, "Mike Jones"
> >>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ryan, it seems that your primary motivation here is
> >>>>>> preventing things
> >>>>> that could go wrong.  Mine is enabling things that can go
> >>>>> right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I find it hypocritical that you’ll happily use the IANA
> >>>>>> Registry to
> >>>>> extend JWK for use by WebCrypto in
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/#iana-section but you’re
> >>>>> unwilling to admit that enabling the IETF or others to
> >>>>> similarly extend WebCrypto would likewise be a good thing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The IETF is happy to have others extend the Internet in
> >>>>>> a principled
> >>>>> fashion.  Why are you so afraid to let the IETF or others
> >>>>> extend the Web in a similarly principled fashion?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JWK is stronger because WebCrypto can extend it.  It’s
> >>>>>> better for
> >>>>> WebCrypto, better for JOSE, and better for the Internet.
> >>>>> WebCrypto and the Web would be similarly stronger if
> >>>>> others outside the W3C could extend it. So let’s make it
> >>>>> happen!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’ll be happy continue to advocate that it’s more
> >>>>>> important to WebCrypto
> >>>>> and the W3C to enable responsible extensions by all, even
> >>>>> though it may scare you, than to maintain a closed spec and
> >>>>> closed process that only one organization can extend.  I
> >>>>> believe that openness in this respect is “on the right side
> >>>>> of history”.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>] Sent:
> >>>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:12 PM To: Mike Jones Cc: Mark
> >>>>>> Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> Subject: RE: On
> >>>>>> Registries
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 7:56 PM, "Mike Jones"
> >>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Replies about the W3C’s positive role in ensuring
> >>>>>>> quality of algorithm
> >>>>> registry entries inline at the end of this message…
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>] Sent:
> >>>>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 7:44 PM To: Mike Jones Cc:
> >>>>>>> Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> Subject: RE: On
> >>>>>>> Registries
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 7:31 PM, "Mike Jones"
> >>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your insightful reply, Mark.  A few
> >>>>>>>> comments inline below…
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>] Sent:
> >>>>>>>> Thursday, August 07, 2014 6:02 PM To: Mike Jones Cc:
> >>>>>>>> Ryan Sleevi; public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> Subject: Re: On
> >>>>>>>> Registries
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 7, 2014, Mike Jones
> >>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Simple.  In the first case, the algorithm is a data
> >>>>>>>> value. In the
> >>>>> second case, it’s encoded in an API.  Data values are
> >>>>> easily extensible. APIs are not.  That’s why extending the
> >>>>> space of algorithms by registering new data values makes a
> >>>>> world of sense. Expending the algorithms by adding new APIs
> >>>>> for each would be clunky, procedurally slow, and mostly
> >>>>> unworkable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think what Ryan is saying is that it should be no
> >>>>>>>> easier to add an
> >>>>> algorithm than it is to add a new API (or, more strongly,
> >>>>> that a new algorithm *is* a new API and _therefore_ should
> >>>>> be no easier to add).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I believe you’ve accurately identified the heart of
> >>>>>>>> the disagreement
> >>>>> here, Mark.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IF we decided that it should be easier than this to
> >>>>>>>> add new
> >>>>> algorithms and especially if we decided that groups other
> >>>>> than W3C Working Groups should be able to do so, then a
> >>>>> registry makes sense as a mechanism to coordinate that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Agreed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Otherwise (which is where we are now), then the
> >>>>>>>> definitive list of
> >>>>> algorithms is to be found in the sum total of the output of
> >>>>> the W3C WebCrypto Working Group and nowhere else.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If we decide that he definitive list of algorithms is
> >>>>>>>> only to be
> >>>>> produced by the W3C WebCrypto Working Group, I believe that
> >>>>> would be a significant missed opportunity.  The WebCrypto
> >>>>> API is an exercise in packaging algorithms developed by
> >>>>> cryptographers for use by Web developers, just like JOSE
> >>>>> is.  Neither working group’s primary expertise is
> >>>>> cryptography.  Cryptographers should be the ones to write
> >>>>> the extensions specs defining new algorithms – not us.
> >>>>> Some of those may occur in the W3C but some may occur in
> >>>>> the IETF and some may be individual drafts by people such
> >>>>> as Dan Bernstein, David McGrew, and Brian LaMacchia.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We would be doing the WebCrypto API and the Web a
> >>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>> disservice if we don’t enable people other than us to
> >>>>> define and register new algorithms for use with WebCrypto.
> >>>>> We should be humble enough to recognize that defining new
> >>>>> crypto algorithms is not our expertise and let those who
> >>>>> are experts define them for use with our spec, no matter
> >>>>> where they choose to do the work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree with the sentiment that anyone should be able
> >>>>>>> to write
> >>>>> definitions for algorithms, and am excited to see Trevor's
> >>>>> Curve25519 draft.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree with the sentiment that it should happen
> >>>>>>> outside the W3C.
> >>>>> To do so is to return to the browser wars, where both
> >>>>> Microsoft and Mozilla, though well motivated, wrecked great
> >>>>> harm through "embrace, extend, extinguish" and the
> >>>>> introduction at large of new vendor-specific APIs, often
> >>>>> without specs (or without free licensing, or with great
> >>>>> patent encumbrance, or through active hostility towards
> >>>>> other UAs efforts to interop)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The W3C (and the WHATWG) exist to help prevent that
> >>>>>>> terrible harm from
> >>>>> ever happening again. The way to do that is by having
> >>>>> multiple UAs coordinate and ship features responsibly, to
> >>>>> agree on specifications, and to avoid vendor lock-in.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regardless of this group's cryptographic expertise,
> >>>>>>> which i agree is
> >>>>> unfortunately lacking, we are filled with UA implementors,
> >>>>> the sole entities with the power to make - or break - the
> >>>>> web; For developers, for other UA implementors, and most
> >>>>> importantly, for users, for this generation of the web and
> >>>>> those to come. For that, there can and should be no
> >>>>> alternative - we must agree, as UAs, and the W3C exists
> >>>>> precisely to support and guide that agreement.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Suggesting that using a responsibly managed registry
> >>>>>>> would be a return
> >>>>> to the “browser wars” or that features would be shipped
> >>>>> without specifications is hyperbole.  I’m only advocating
> >>>>> a specification-required registry with expert review.  The
> >>>>> W3C would appoint the appropriate experts to ensure that
> >>>>> the specifications registering algorithms are clear and
> >>>>> well-written and meet any other criteria decided by the
> >>>>> W3C.  The W3C can ensure the quality of registered
> >>>>> algorithms without having to write all the drafts itself.
> >>>>> It’s unnecessary and detrimental hubris to think that we’re
> >>>>> the only ones qualified to do so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- Mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Expert Review is exactly the detrimental sort of stuff
> >>>>>> that got us into
> >>>>> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The W3C REC track is exactly that. A path for _anyone_ to
> >>>>>> write specs,
> >>>>> submit them to the WG, for UAs and users to agree in
> >>>>> interest, and to develop and publish such specifications
> >>>>> with clear views on patents, interoperability, and
> >>>>> applicability to the web.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No single expert is qualified to reflect consensus of a
> >>>>> multi-stakeholder UA community, which is a fundamental and
> >>>>> nonnegotiable portion of any Web API.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So if we talk a panel of experts, who are they? Well, we
> >>>>>> probably want
> >>>>> some UAs, those are essential. We probably need some
> >>>>> cryptographers, since security is key. We should hear from
> >>>>> developers, since this matters to them. And we should
> >>>>> probably have a few representatives from the public.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And suddenly, you have an Expert Panel that is
> >>>>>> indistinguishable in form
> >>>>> or function from a WG. And without having to reinvent a
> >>>>> process for that review.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any solution that fails to go through the W3C/WHATWG
> >>>>>> process is, in
> >>>>> spirit and effect, a return to the browser wars - including
> >>>>> the designation of sole experts (which the W3C also has
> >>>>> readily available if this WG should ever need - the TAG and
> >>>>> AB)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT6B+2AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqc4+oP/j01q7jWbjaWvPyqxvsv1zsT
> 52Qa3K77of3eNzFpr0B+6LtcP++IhE3b2YQ1wcyZL/93uPPtQY5eVj/6QDTSKrWL
> s0bngPg/tr5u3qyDNFucV2IjNPORDABoqT9OFXNyFQa8D2fqtGCO+eZzbh6CRrf6
> IKYoR0dj2xYwmsIHC2Y1MLUOhYXT0NuG3fNxElVY7qQqyWhQ//VqJvNwGkLW+EfN
> bkYOEFkR2hI5HoOQuB3EX4mwLMySE4XHjXk7uGpwC/EwOkvP3wdSLQ3dS2UkcApU
> oOjAQ/mtN79FTtSTix+rP32d1k78RtzXxgP2xSZhcebRZD9lrFVcz5sBTlj0eD3r
> hp5+D9Em3fWIXLWl9cTaxkkGBWTvNPl/e6C2Yt54gYCpqWJ1bnBzP5vwRzD3hVIE
> wejIDGnbTj+osicwTnlvx8OqyxDt88l3O+XF4/xFpejQJ/j70MQq+4WhS+omCvvP
> cUsWYYoU7U8rRW0s3zX+ax557mUsQwqrBj5HqmTKbsva3kbMiC/WWIK7q1GnD9Bw
> xG2BOjvqJCFye9RPpfak6FvHh7bbgO/ga+jWp9PZDBY/FiTNf7Yi5chGPRBwqd6M
> BSUh1mARm4JfBs60MMIlpNiPlsd+zA1iUWVcF0y7ahkslPj+UQutq5nux2/gn2i/
> 7zNk06zDAgrNxyy3h2Hy
> =0qWJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.