Re: [xcbf] Groups - XCBF XML Common Biometric Format CS April 3 2003.zipuploaded

[John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>]

Phil,

If everything is intended to be CXER, then a clear statement to that 
effect suffices - I am absolutely *not* wanting that to be said in any 
formal way.  But I still think there is confusion with examples that are 
not in CXER, and the use of terms like "BASE64 armoured" also adds 
confusion.

But your first sentence in the mail below confuses me in terms of your 
intent, and adds confusion to the spec itself.  What do you mean by 
"We're using Base64 in a simple specification"?  What simple 
specification?  Base64 is at the heart of this problem.  It WILL be 
available in EXTENDED-XER which will be fully approved in late summer by 
ITU-T, fingers crossed, but Ed was unwilling on the first vote to 
reference the amendment for that until it was published, and this 
started the problem.  Please, however, note there is no canonical 
version of EXTENDED-XER, nor is one planned, so you can only use BASE64 
AND canonical encodings by mixed use of EXTENDED-XER and CXER, something 
I do not really recommend if it can be avoided.

But .....

.... provided the next ballot document contains a clear and unambiguous 
statement that the encoding of all parts of the ASN.1 is CXER (assuming 
that is what is intended), then you will get my whole-hearted YES vote 
without comments - I can live with any other bits which might cause 
confusion.

John L


Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> John,
> 
> We're using Base64 in a simple specification.
> 
> We are requiring CXER for encodings of values of type
> BiometricObjects when they must be cryptographically
> enhanced.
> 
> We are not using formal notations to specify when CXER
> is required, because the specification requirements for all
> CXER use is so simple.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Larmouth wrote:
> 
>> Phil,
>>
>> I do NOT want this to be confrontational.
>>
>> Can we please have reasoned discussions on what will be a good Standard?
>>
>> The issues seem to revolve around BASE64, with perhaps a sub-issue of 
>> which parts use BASIC-XER and which use CXER, and the nature of examples.
>>
>> We need a consistent document.  But that can only be achieved once we 
>> all agree on what is to be expressed.
>>
>> Are we abanonding BASE64 or not?  Are we doing a contorted spec with 
>> CONTAINED BY, or a simple spec?  Are we clearly using the formal 
>> notations to specify which bits are CXER and which are BASIC-XER 
>> (assuming that thre *are* any BASIC-XER - as opposed to CXER - 
>> components).  And are the examples an tutorial text in-line with the 
>> normnative text?
>>
>> These are the main issues to be resolved - not by ballot, but by 
>> discussion.
>>
>> I am sure this is all solvable, but I would really prefer a solution 
>> by *discussion* within the TC to acheive a consensus,  with futher 
>> ballots only occuring after there is such a consensus.
>>
>> Repeasted balllots that fail are certainly allowed by the procedures, 
>> but are not productive, and bring discredit on the work.
>>
>> John L
>>
>>
>> Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
>>
>>> You may be correct! I'll check with Jamie on his interpretation of
>>> the OASIS rules.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: phil.griffin@asn-1.com [mailto:phil.griffin@asn-1.com] Sent: 
>>>>> Thursday, April 10, 2003 08:49
>>>>> To: xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>> Subject: [xcbf] Groups - XCBF XML Common Biometric Format CS April 
>>>>> 3 2003.zip uploaded
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The document XCBF XML Common Biometric Format CS April 3 2003.zip 
>>>>> has been submitted by Phil Griffin (phil.griffin@asn-1.com) to the 
>>>>> XML Common Biometric Format TC document repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Document Description:
>>>>> XCBF Committee Specification 1.0 approved March 25, 2003 after 
>>>>> agreed changes incorporated to address a thrity day public review 
>>>>> period, plus minor changes resulting  from comments made in that 
>>>>> ballot that were accepted by the XCBF TC in the ballot closing 
>>>>> April 10, 2003.
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the present document has NOT been approved as a new
>>>> Committee Specification, because the number of YES votes has been less
>>>> than 2/3 of the total membership of the TC.   Can you please clarify?
>>>>
>>>> Alessandro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> Download Document:  
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/download.php
>>>>> /1501/XCBF%20XML%20Common%20Biometric%20Format%20CS%20April%20
>>>>> 3%202003.zip
>>>>>
>>>>> View Document Details: 
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xcbf/document.php
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?document_id=1501
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
>>>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able
>>>> to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of 
>>>> your
>>>> web browser.
>>>>
>>>> -OASIS Open Administration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly
not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless
the subject contains the phrase "Hi John".

If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy
for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the
subject line of their first mailing to me.  Thanks.

    Prof John Larmouth
    Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
    (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
    1 Blueberry Road
    Bowdon                               j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
    Cheshire WA14 3LS                    (put "Hi John" in subject)
    England			
    Tel: +44 161 928 1605		Fax: +44 161 928 8069