W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:45:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3B822DD3.BF035561@baltimore.ie>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
CC: "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, www-xkms-ws@w3.org

Phill,

Why not be specific & say that we will do interop based on X.509
and, iff implementations emerge in time, then based on PGP as well,
and that's all. Further interop (e.g. spki) would then require a 
re-charter.

In all other respects interop should cover the full set (mandatory,
recommended, optional).

I think we may as well be clear about what we all know will 
be the case which is that there'll be no problem getting multiple
X.509 based implementations, whereas we don't know what'll happen
wrt XKMS implementations based on PGP.

Regards,
Stephen.

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote:
> 
> The problem is that we are linking to XML Signature and so we dredge up the
> full compliment of the mud it has accumulated.
> 
> The only place XKMS refers to PGP and SPKI is in the definition of the
> Respond element.
> 
> I don't mind offending the SPKI camp, the spec is experimental and likely to
> remain so. The PGP camp is a different matter, they have users.
> 
>         Phill
> 
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
> pbaker@verisign.com
> 781 245 6996 x227
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:37 PM
> > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Blair Dillaway; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> > Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> >
> >
> > On Monday 20 August 2001 15:46, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > > One nit though, does this mean that if we say 'support for SPKI is
> > > optional' then someone has to do it.
> >
> > In the general case I'd say so. Sometimes, in a rare, minor
> > case, one might
> > fudge it. We discussed this in xmldsig with PGPData and
> > SPKIData and fudged
> > because of the way it evolved (believing this was
> > demonstrating syntactic
> > extensibility not optional functionality), but I'm a big fan
> > of as little as
> > optionality as possible -- except for syntactic extensibility.
> >
> > > I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
> > > I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
> > > from elsewhere that we can plug in?
> >
> > It's already in there (or at least the copy I have second
> > paragraph of "IPR
> > Disclosure."), as borrowed from the Encryption Charter -- maybe I'm
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > > OK. Frontpage is suggesting lassoing rather than liasoning but
> > > I'll stick with your version.
> >
> > Yea, I knew that was wrong but couldn't get a better
> > suggestion either, but
> > Don found the right word!
> >

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 05:46:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:38 EDT