RE: SOAP headers for xmldsig and xenc

Some process questions, in no particular order:

1. What namespace(s) would we use?  SOAP-SEC uses xmlsoap.org, and I assume
we'd have to switch to w3.org.
2. What names for specs?  WS-Sec? WS-Security (and another number of
interesting names) are taken by MSFT.
3. Do you see taking specs and modifying them, with new editors from our
task force?
4. I think that MSFT has updated/changed from SOAP-SEC to WS-Security, so it
would be worthwhile knowing the reasons.  In particular, I'd like to know if
there was new or updated thinking.
5. I think that we should get a small list of requirements as well.  Might
make it easier for WSArch to take any output.
6. Is this a public list?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xenc-xmlp-tf-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-xenc-xmlp-tf-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: David Orchard; 'www-xenc-xmlp-tf'
> Cc: MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com; Takeshi Imamura; Maryann Hondo
> Subject: Re: SOAP headers for xmldsig and xenc
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 April 2002 15:11, David Orchard wrote:
> > I'm interested.
> > Are there any issues around using or re-using the 2 specs
> listed, such as
> > IP?
>
> For any future work, I consider anything on this xenc-xmlp
> task force list
> to under the terms of the xenc or xmlp charters.
>
> With respect to existing copyright, on the soap-sec note MS's
> declaration
> is very clear [1] and there would be no room for concern on
> that note.
> IBM's declaration isn't clear but I wouldn't expect a
> problem. On Hiroshi's
> email [2], again, I wouldn't expect a problem -- and I'm sort
> of hoping
> someone in Tokyo will volunteer. <smile/> So from the point
> of view of the
> copyright, I don't see any major hurdle from starting to work
> ASAP. It'd be
> best that in the draft we say that this work is being done in
> accordance
> with [3].
>
> With respect to existing patents, that's more difficult.
> However, as I said
> at first, I expect work on this list to be compatible with
> the xenc/xmlp
> charters and the document  should say, "the intended audience of this
> document is as a contribution to the Web SeSrvices and/or XML
> Encryption
> activities." If/when a document was considered as a formal
> deliverable of
> some chartered activity, that'd be the time we make sure we have the
> formalities accounted for.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/01/
> Microsoft hereby grants to the W3C a perpetual, nonexclusive,
> non-sublicensable, non assignable, royalty-free, world-wide right and
> license under any Microsoft copyrights in this contribution to copy,
> publish and distribute the contribution, as well as a right
> and license of
> the same scope to any derivative works prepared by the W3C
> and based on, or
> incorporating all or part of the contribution.
> [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xenc-xmlp-tf/2001Dec/0001.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Contributor.html#Copyright

--

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 01:39:10 UTC