RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

That approach is OK with me, although I think it would require more than a
mere recharter to support SPKI :-)



Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: 'Joseph Reagle'; Blair Dillaway; www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>