RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

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!
>