Actually the article was written before the journalist in question talked
to us.
At no
time did Microsoft, IBM or VeriSign say anything negative about W3C, in fact
quite the opposite.
The
point here is simply that people have had good experiences with OASIS recently
and regardless of what anyone thinks of the SAML specification the speed with
which it has been completed has been noted.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Lockhart
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002
6:10 PM
To: ''
Cc: 'Hallam-Baker,
Phillip'; RL 'Bob' Morgan; OASIS Security Services TC
Subject: RE:
[security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality and Integrity: N ext
Step?
Ok,
Bob you caught me. I looked it up and the quote was in an eWeek article
here:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,290627,00.asp
The quote I was
referring to was:
Eric Newcomer, chief technology officer of Iona Technologies Inc., in
Waltham, Mass., and a founding member of the working group that will handle
the WS-Security standards effort within OASIS, said from his perspective IBM
and Microsoft grew "impatient" with the efforts of the Worldwide Web
Consortium (W3C) to deliver a standard around security and Web services.
Newcomer, a member of the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group, said
the group has been trying to create a security working group at the W3C to no
avail. "It's hard to do," he said.
However, "I'd say it's a good choice," Newcomer said of the decision to
push the standard through OASIS. "They have a good track record" delivering
standards, he said.
What I
said was:
Actually the Yahoo news article
has a long quote about how they wanted to go to W3C but were rebuffed.
So I think that particular bridge is fairly well
burnt.
I
stand by that. I did not say:
submitted WS-Security to W3C
You
did.
However, this all is a distraction form the main
point. Which was what I said about the Security JC, which I think all of a
sudden will not be a waste of time as I feared.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 6:03
PM
To: Hal Lockhart
Cc: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; RL
'Bob' Morgan; OASIS Security Services TC
Subject: RE:
[security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality and Integrity: N ext
Step?
Hmmm? Which Yahoo news article? I didn't see that
quote.
In any event, it is not true that we submitted WS-Security to
W3C and it is not true that we were rebuffed.
I know of no reason to
believe that any bridge is burnt.
--bob
Bob Blakley (email:
phone: +1 512 286-2240 fax: +1 512 286-2057)
Chief
Scientist, Security and Privacy, IBM Tivoli Software
To: "'Hallam-Baker,
Phillip'" <>, "RL 'Bob' Morgan"
<>, OASIS Security Services TC
<>
cc:
Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: SOAP
Confidentiality and Integrity: N ext
Step?
Actually the Yahoo news article
has a long quote about how they wanted to go to W3C but were rebuffed.
So I think that particular bridge is fairly well burnt.
One thing a
lot of people haven't realized yet is that the new TC will have to liaison
with the Security JC. So we will have a pretty good forum for achieving
cooperation amongst the several Security TCs. If they had gone to W3C, we
would have had to try to establish liaison with each TC individually, if at
all.
Hal
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:15 PM
> To: RL 'Bob' Morgan; OASIS Security Services TC
> Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality
and
> Integrity:
> N
ext Step?
>
>
>
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-secu
re/?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>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
