RE: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]

[Robert Fox <robertf@softshare.com>]

Getting people to acceopt and adapt a security standard ahs always been a
slow process. I feel that if it offers a considerable advantage what is
available today, we should push for a gradual adoption. Our products have
supported S/MIME for years... it's proven and readily supported... either a
dual support, or gradual transition to a different security approach might
be best here...


~Rob

Robert Fox
Program Manager
Softshare
EM: robertf@softshare.com
PH:(805) 899-2366
FX: (805) 882-2599 


-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Robert (GEIS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@geis.ge.com]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 7:09 AM
To: Kit (Christopher) Lueder; Dick Brooks
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]


MILR: IMO, adopting MIME/SMIME is a no-brainer, we just do it.  Even if we
live to see the day when we can meet ebXML requirements with a pure XML
solution, we should still have MIME/SMIME as one solution in the ebXML bag.


To those who feel there should be one and only one way to do things, may I
remind them that technology breeds ever better ways to do what was done
before, and with it breeds new standards.  The rate at which older standards
fade away is a business function of both the investment and operating cost
of change vs.
benefit of change equation.  The cotton gin was a stellar advancement, and
change to the new 'standard' was rapid.  Computer programming languages are
a dime a dozen - advancements in this arena are more subtle.  

Cheers,
        Bob Miller
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kit (Christopher) Lueder [mailto:kit@mitre.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:58 PM
To: Dick Brooks
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]


Well, it looks like XML encryption is starting up (appended below)...We
don't want to standardize on MIME encryption if W3C develops a different
XML encryption recommendation.
Kit.

Dick Brooks wrote:
> Kit,
> This addresses the digital signature requirement but what about
encryption?
> There is no W3C standard for encryption.
> Dick Brooks
> http://www.8760.com/
> 
> -----Original Message-----

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W722           FAX:  703-883-7996
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@mitre.org
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 2:47 PM
To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG
Subject: XML Encryption List

Since a couple people seem interested in the issue of XML encryption, I
agreed to put together a list for the topic. [1] I'm forwarding this
message
on to the XML Signature list, and folks recommended some other lists,
but
I'll let those people forward it on as approriate. The only people I've
already added are those that specifically requested and to whom I
affirmitively responded via email. (If you are in doubt, you are not
subscribed).

__

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/

xml-encryption@w3.org Mail
Archives

XML Encryption Mailing List (Help) 
     Subscribe: xml-encryption-request@w3.org 
         In Subject: (un)subscribe 
     General Discussion: xml-encryption@w3.org (Must be subscribed to
send) 
     Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/
     Maintainer:  Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> 

This list is for discussion about XML encryption and related (potential)
IETF or
W3C activity. The purpose of this list is to foster the development of a
community of interest and a set of design issues and requirements that
might
prompt a
BOF or workshop on the topic. This discussion list is public, it is not
moderated, and
it is not part of an chartered activity of the IETF or W3C.