- From: David Turner <dturner@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:46:42 -0700
- To: <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-xenc-xmlp-tf@w3.org>
Joseph, I appreciate what you are trying to do, and my goal is not to dampen anyone's enthusiasm. Unfortunately, we cannot ignore IPR issues. I think you missed one of the key points of my message. The lack of an IPR policy for this DL does create a risk for the participants. But more importantly it creates a potential risk for any Recommendations based on "contributions" made to this list. You may wish that everyone on this DL agrees to "...continue to work under the intellectual rights policies of the XENC or XMLP charter...", but that doesn't make is so. David -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:19 PM To: David Turner; www-xenc-xmlp-tf@w3.org Subject: Re: SOAP headers for xmldsig and xenc On Thursday 04 April 2002 19:04, David Turner wrote: > I am concerned by your earlier statement: David I appreciate your statement and I'll try to re-express myself in light of its consideration. This mailing list was created as a forum for demonstrating completeness towards the use of XML Encryption and XML Protocol together, particularly with respect to scenarios and questions of instance validity, see Charter [1]. If you're willing to continue to work under the intellectual rights policies of the XENC or XMLP charter, I'm willing to provide a namespace towards addressing scenarios of using XML Encryption with its Decryption Transform for XML Signature in the SOAP context. > Regardless of what IP policy is chosen for the proposed WG, any > technical discussions that take place now, create IP risks for the > members and for any related specs produced by the W3C. If any participant feels that such participation puts them at risk, then they should not participate. It was my hope that things were quiet because of a lack of namespace, someone to herd things together, or because the scenarios was only an optional deliverable. If, instead, people consider it out of scope, or consider it a risk, then I suppose this list will stay quiet. [1] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/10/xmlenc-charter.html 7. Optionally, develop a document of scenarios and recommendations regarding the affects and requirements of XML Encryption processing on XML parsing and validation. This must be a separate document. Demonstration Applications It is hoped that the following applications being developed by members of the WG will provide a useful test of the completeness: 1. XML Protocol -- 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 Monday, 8 April 2002 18:46:56 UTC