RE: [security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality and Integrity: N extStep?

No, I don't think we can say that. However the chances
of the W3C membership approving a direct competitor to
WS-Security are negligible.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: OASIS Security Services TC
> Subject: Re: [security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality and 
> Integrity:
> Next Step?
> 
> 
> 
> Does the submission of the WS-Security specs to OASIS (and the meeting
> announced by Phill) mean that there will *not* be a "web services
> security" activity chartered within the W3C?
> 
>  - RL "Bob"
> 
> ---
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:24 PM
> > To: 
> > Cc: ; ; 
> > Subject: SOAP Confidentiality and Integrity: Next Step?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This email is a final step in a thread in how to start work 
> on providing
> > confidentiality and integrity for SOAP messages. I've 
> discused a range of
> > security issues [1] with a conclusion that this topic 
> (soap+xmldsig+xenc)
> > is most pressing; however, I was not able to find agreement 
> that this issue
> > should be shoe-horned into an existing WG, instead it 
> should be part of the
> > Web Services security. [2]
> >
> > Though I'm relatively ignorant of the ws-arch discussions, 
> I've heard the
> > ws-arch WG is considering this issue and will try to have charters
> > available for work in July [3], but that the immediate 
> issue might also be
> > delayed be consideration of the bigger issues. 
> Consequently, I'd recommend
> > that a charter for work in the WS Activity be specified 
> with a scope no
> > larger than [4] -- and potentially more narrow (e.g., 
> without tokens). A
> > "web services security" community does not yet exist (or it 
> does, but it's
> > fragmented) and starting work on this immediately not only 
> commences with
> > the work, but helps build a community which then can 
> contribute to the
> > larger discussion. For instance, because standardized 
> security components
> > do not yet exist, specifications such as XKMS [5] may end 
> up specifying
> > "one-off" versions in the short term. However, these could 
> be contributed
> > to the WS work. We all know somebody who knows somebody who 
> is in the other
> > WG, but sometimes that isn't quite enough. <smile/>
> >
> > In conclusion, I advocate a charter with specific and 
> immediate terms, and
> > an active recruitment of participants. Please let me know 
> if and how events
> > are likely to be otherwise. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2002AprJun/0022.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xenc-xmlp-tf/2002Jun/0002.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/28-ws-cg-irc.txt
> [4]
>
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/security/library/ws-secure/?dwzone=sec
> urity
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/
> html/ws-security.asp
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2002Jun/0016.html
>
>
> --
> Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:
> IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
> W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>