W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

Re: D-AR006.12 [Was RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points]

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:54:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3CDBD103.60805@sun.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hmmm...

I did a search for "security primitives" and get only
666 (spooky!) hits[2].

I did a search on "security countermeasures" and get
3,350 hits[3]. Seems to me to be a more widely used
term than "security primitives" (which I had never
previously heard used, and I've been around a while:)

A search on "security principles" will get you 10,100
hits[1], the most interesting of which is[4] (parented by
[5]). The interesting thing there is that this body
The International Information Security Foundation (I2SF),
cites 3 "Pervasive" security principles (e.g. rule or standard,
see [6]) which are:
	Confidentiality
	Integrity
	Availability

Cheers,

Chris

[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22security+primitives%22
[2] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22security+countermeasures%22
[3] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22security+principles%22
[4] http://web.mit.edu/security/www/GASSP/gassp021.html
[5] http://web.mit.edu/security/www/gassp1.html
[6] http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=principle

Joseph Hui wrote:
<snip/>
  >
  > Again, nomenclature issue: the term "principle(s)" connotes
  > "how to do something better."  We want to convey "what
  > constitutes the foundation" in the sentence, because the
  > paragraph is meant to be a lite intro for the few reqs to
  > follow.  Additionally, as I said in a previous message,
  > "Access Control (file permission, etc.)" is an Authz means.
 >
 >
 >>ADD to the requirements statements:
 >>     - The security framework must include Auditing.
 >>
 >
 > IMO, this is good -- something I can recommend to the WG
 > and the public.  So, unless there're objections, the following
 > is going to the WG's floor:
 >
 >    D-AR006.12 --
 >        The security framework must include Auditing.
 >
 > Editors, please take note of the D-AR006.12 addition.
 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Joe Hui
 > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 > ========================================
 >
 >
 >
 >>-----Original Message-----
 >>From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net]
 >>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:50 PM
 >>To: Christopher Ferris
 >>Cc: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>Subject: RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
 >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:50 PM
 >>>To: Joseph Hui
 >>>Cc: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>Subject: Re: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>Joe,
 >>>
 >>>What is a "security primitive" per se? My understanding of
 >>>security is based on the premise of risks and balanced
 >>>countermeasures based on the level of risk assessed
 >>>for each resource. I have never heard of a "security
 >>>primitive" before so I have no idea how to respond
 >>>to your question.
 >>>
 >>Off the top of my head, the established security primitives
 >>include: encryption (for Confidentiality); message digest (for
 >>data Integrity; Public Key Encryption (PKE, for key
 >>establishment, which may be further broken down to
 >>key exchange and key agreement); digital signature
 >>(for non-repudiation), ...  I think you get gist by now.
 >>
 >>(Just like doing computer graphics, you have point,
 >>draw, fill, ... as graphic primitives.)
 >>
 >>
 >>>IMO, auditing as a service *might* be something we
 >>>consider as an important aspect of web services
 >>>security.
 >>>
 >>I agree it can be important, but not to the point of
 >>being the equal of the original six.
 >>
 >>
 >>>Or, we might conclude that in terms of priority
 >>>that other countermeasure technologies should be considered
 >>>ahead of auditing. But that's beside the point.
 >>>
 >>>The six "facets" you cite are in fact (IMHO) merely six
 >>>countermeasures which comprise but a subset of the
 >>>total arsenal of countermeasures that might be applied
 >>>to mitigate a risk. Auditing is another, equally valid,
 >>>countermeasure that is (or should be!) often employed
 >>>within the fabric of a secure environment. There are
 >>>other non-technical (and IMHO, far more important)
 >>>countermeasures (management comes to mind, without which
 >>>all the glitzy technicological countermeasures one
 >>>can imagine can be rendered useless overhead) that could
 >>>also be included in the list.
 >>>
 >>Are we going to roll admin/operational elements into the mix now?
 >>I thought there was already enough grief given to D-AR006.7
 >>through 6.8.  They are admin/operational-ish.
 >>
 >>
 >>>Why is it that you are so adamantly opposed to its (Auditing)
 >>>inclusion in this list?
 >>>
 >>Let's not jump to conclusions.  I haven't made up my mind yet
 >>whether to oppose it, let alone adamantly.
 >>For Pete's sake, what's the final wording of the req?
 >>
 >>I have already expressed my reservation about grouping Auditing
 >>in as a sec aspect.  (Ayse was having mail problem and I'm
 >>still waiting on the response that she said she'd sent me.)
 >>And I've already responded (favorbly, mind you :-) to the
 >>one proposed by Steven A. Monetti.
 >>
 >>
 >>>A number of others have chimed in suggesting
 >>>that its inclusion would be "a good thing(tm)".
 >>>
 >>No argument ever from me against Auditing being a good thing.
 >>
 >>
 >>>Would you be willing to live with its inclusion?
 >>>
 >>Inclusion as a separate req; or inclusion as replacement to
 >>supplant the original six?  Like implied earlier, I can
 >>live with the simple wording proposed by Steven.
 >>Will that be the final wording?
 >>
 >>Cheers
 >>
 >>Joe Hui
 >>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>=========================================
 >>
 >>>Cheers,
 >>>
 >>>Chris
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>Joseph Hui wrote:
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>>>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
 >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:25 PM
 >>>>>To: Joseph Hui
 >>>>>Cc: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>Subject: Re: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>Joe,
 >>>>>
 >>>>>As with AuthN and AuthZ, it is a countermeasure used
 >>>>>to mitigate a security threat(s) such as when AuthN and
 >>>>>AuthZ have been (somehow) circumvented. It is also
 >>>>>useful to protect against abuse of privileges that
 >>>>>may have been granted.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>Chris,
 >>>>
 >>>>I'm well aware of the benefits of auditing -- nuts and
 >>>>bolts and trimmings; and what auditing may mean in various
 >>>>contexts.  (Exodus is a well established vendor of Security
 >>>>Audit services, albeit Ayse's notion of Auditing is more
 >>>>like logging and our products cover far more than that.)
 >>>>
 >>>>However, I wouldn't elevate it to a "security aspect/facet"
 >>>>equal to the original six commonly known to security experts.
 >>>>The experts no doubt know what Auditing can mean in the
 >>>>context of security, but wouldn't group it in the company
 >>>>of the original six for sure.
 >>>>
 >>>>Can you think of a security primitive that does Auditing?
 >>>>
 >>>>Cheers,
 >>>>
 >>>>Joe Hui
 >>>>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>>>=================================================
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>>Cheers,
 >>>>>
 >>>>>Chris-sans-chapeau
 >>>>>
 >>>>>Joseph Hui wrote:
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>From: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO [mailto:adilber@att.com]
 >>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:02 PM
 >>>>>>>To: Joseph Hui; Christopher Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>>>Subject: RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>i don't know if you will receive this but i'm having lots of
 >>>>>>>e-mail problems today, i thought i answered your question in
 >>>>>>>a different message but it sounds like it wasn't delivered.
 >>>>>>>so here it is:
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>Well, here it is what?  Another mail problem? ;-)
 >>>>>>Please take your time, Ayse.
 >>>>>>Fix you mail first; the world can wait. :-)
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>Joe Hui
 >>>>>>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>>>>>=============================================
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net]
 >>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:41 PM
 >>>>>>>To: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO; Christopher Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>>>Subject: RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>Ayse,
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>Then what's your answer to my questions in [1]
 >>>>>>>pertaining to threat characterization?
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>I'm copying the text of the original question over
 >>>>>>>as follows:
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>Auditing* as a security aspect?
 >>>>>>>Can you explain why?  E.g. for starter, how would you
 >>>>>>>characterize the threat (model) that's unique to Auditing?
 >>>>>>>Note that the impetus for requiring each of the original
 >>>>>>>six begins with a unique threat, or in some cases, threats.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>Joe Hui
 >>>>>>>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>PS: I wasn't interested in what auditing means in
 >>>>>>>  the conventional sense.  It's obvious.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>[1]
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002May/0056.html
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>============================================================
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>==========
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>>From: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO [mailto:adilber@att.com]
 >>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:59 PM
 >>>>>>>>To: Joseph Hui; Christopher Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>>>>Subject: RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>No, I didn't back out on Auditing!  I was having serious
 >>>>>>>>e-mail problems that's why I couldn't respond.  I believe
 >>>>>>>>that the Auditing should be included!
 >>>>>>>>Ayse
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>>From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph.Hui@exodus.net]
 >>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:55 PM
 >>>>>>>>To: Christopher Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>>>>Subject: RE: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>>>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
 >>>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:00 PM
 >>>>>>>>>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>Joe/Ayse,
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>1) Please keep this, and all technical discussion, on
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>the public
 >>
 >>>>>>>>>mailing list.
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>2) It seems to me that Joe is suggesting that the bulleted
 >>>>>>>>>item under D-AR006.11 that says:
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>"There are six aspects in the security framework for Web
 >>>>>>>>>Services architecture: Accessibility,
 >>>>>>>>>Authentication, Authorization, Confidentiality, Integrity,
 >>>>>>>>>and Non-repudiation. Together they form
 >>>>>>>>>the foundation for secure Web Services.
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>The above text is NOT a requirement at all!!!
 >>>>>>>>It doesn't even read like one.
 >>>>>>>>It's a lite intro for D-AR006.1 thru D-AR006.6.
 >>>>>>>>The editors inserted D-AR006.10 and D-AR006.11 in
 >>>>>>>>the wrong place.  The two should have followed D-AR009;
 >>>>>>>>and the intro should not have been bulletized.
 >>>>>>>>What a mess.  sigh.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>D-AR006.11 text should read as follows:
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>D-AR006.11 The architecture must provide an interface for
 >>>>>>>>Web Services to directly communicate with their underlying
 >>>>>>>>infrastructure.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>The interface is for negotiating services that an
 >>>>>>>>
 >>infrastructure
 >>
 >>>>>>>>may provide to, or perform on behalf of, requesting Web
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>Services.
 >>>
 >>>>>>>>Such value-added services may include: security, content
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>delivery,
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>QoS, etc. For instance, a Web service may instruct (via the
 >>>>>>>>interface)
 >>>>>>>>the security agents of its infrastructure to defend against
 >>>>>>>>DOS/DDOS attacks on its behalf."
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>is actually a separate requirement from D-AR006.11 and should
 >>>>>>>>>have been
 >>>>>>>>>labeled D-AR006.12 in the document. Am I reading this
 >>>>>>>>>correctly? If so,
 >>>>>>>>>then this needs to be fed to the editors as a comment so
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>that it is
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>certain to be tracked (and fixed in the next editor's draft).
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>The question I have then is whether or not Joe is accepting
 >>>>>>>>>Ayse's request to add Auditing to this list of 6 aspects
 >>>>>>>>>or whether he is suggesting that yet another requirement
 >>>>>>>>>(D-AR006.13) be created to accomodate Auditing... do
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>any others
 >>
 >>>>>>>>>have an opinion on this?
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>I think Ayse has already backed out on Auditing.
 >>>>>>>>So it's no longer an issue whether I'd accept it.
 >>>>>>>>(I wasn't inclined to accept it because there's no
 >>>>>>>>threat model that's uniquely associated with Auditing.
 >>>>>>>>But I wouldn't decide one way or the other without
 >>>>>>>>hearing the case out first.)
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>Whoever wants to give it another shot is welcome to
 >>>>>>>>present his/her *reasoning and analysis*.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>Cheers,
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>Joe Hui
 >>>>>>>>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>>>>>>>==================================================
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>Thanks,
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>Chris
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>Joseph Hui wrote:
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>From: Dilber, Ayse, ALASO [mailto:adilber@att.com]
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>[snip]
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>D-AR006.11 the six aspects need to be replaced with the
 >>>>>>>>>>>following seven aspects of the security framework:
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Ayse, the D-AR006.11 number was taken.
 >>>>>>>>>>You may want to re-number your proposal as D-AR006.12 instead
 >>>>>>>>>>if you're serious about it (to be voted on or debated).
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>Auditing;
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Auditing* as a security aspect?
 >>>>>>>>>>Can you explain why?  E.g. for starter, how would you
 >>>>>>>>>>characterize the threat (model) that's unique to Auditing?
 >>>>>>>>>>Note that the impetus for requiring each of the original
 >>>>>>>>>>six begins with a unique threat, or in some cases, threats.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>Authentication (includes identification and authorization);
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Authc & Authz are separate sec aspects.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Example 1: The security policy of the very system that you're
 >>>>>>>>>>using probably includes only Authz but not Authc.  To login,
 >>>>>>>>>>you simply enter user name and password, the system checks
 >>>>>>>>>>the password file and lets you in.  You are not asked to
 >>>>>>>>>>authenticate yourself as Ayse.  BTW, password file is known
 >>>>>>>>>>to be one form of Access Control List (ACL).
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Example 2: Alice's security policy includes Authc & Authz.
 >>>>>>>>>>To join Alice's party, Bob must present a certificate to
 >>>>>>>>>>Alice to authenticate himself as Bob -- Authc, AND, after
 >>>>>>>>>>successful authc (sometimes aka positive identification),
 >>>>>>>>>>Alice checks whether Bob is on her guest list (i.e. ACL)
 >>>>>>>>>>before allowing him into her party.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>Access Control (file permission, etc.);
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Access Control is just a Authz means.  (See example 2 above.)
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>Joe Hui
 >>>>>>>>>>Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
 >>>>>>>>>>========================================================
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>Confidentiality;
 >>>>>>>>>>>Availability; Integrity; Non-repudiation.
 >>>>>>>>>>>Thanks,
 >>>>>>>>>>>Ayse
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
 >>>>>>>>>>>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
 >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 10:00 AM
 >>>>>>>>>>>To: wsawg public
 >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: D-AR006.11 discussion points
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>SUNW: This requirement goes "inside" a web service
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>and places
 >>
 >>>>>>>>>>>requirements
 >>>>>>>>>>>on how it is designed.  We should be focusing on externally
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>observable
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>(through the web service interfaces) behaviour
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>SYBS: Implementation details. Don't seem to fit in Web
 >>>>>>>>>>>Services Architecture
 >>>>>>>>>>>group..
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>W3C: See
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0015.html
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>ORCL: I don't quite see how "an architecture" can actually
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>provide an
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>interface. And in this case the goal may be too ambitious
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>given the
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>number of different possible "infrastructures".
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>PF: I just don't see the need for this.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>TIB: not clear to me that individual Web services would
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>ever want to
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>know whether they were under DOS at some lower layer
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>CrossWeave: Don't understand this
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>CMPQ: The interface is for negotiating services that an
 >>>>>>>>>>infrastructure may
 >>>>>>>>>>provide to, or perform on behalf of, a requesting
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>Web Services.
 >>
 >>>>>>>>>>Such value-added services may include: security, content
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>delivery,
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>QoS, etc. For instance, a Web service may instruct (via the
 >>>>>>>>>>interface) the security
 >>>>>>>>>>agents of its infrastructure to defend against DOS/DDOS
 >>>>>>>>>>attacks on its behalf.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>This seems to say that the requirement is
 >>>>>>>>>>"The security framework must provide for negotiations
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>pertaining to
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>security considerations."
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>That is, the requirement is for negotiation support;  within
 >>>>>>>>>>security context,
 >>>>>>>>>>it is security negotiation, within QoS context, it is QoS
 >>>>>>>>>>negotiation, etc.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 09:57:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT