[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]
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: email@example.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: 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:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:58 PM To: Dick Brooks Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: 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: email@example.com Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.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.  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). __  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/ email@example.com Mail Archives XML Encryption Mailing List (Help) Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org In Subject: (un)subscribe General Discussion: email@example.com (Must be subscribed to send) Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/ Maintainer: Joseph Reagle <firstname.lastname@example.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.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC