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

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

Phil,

I am not sure how you justify your first statement.

There was certainly initial agreement to use Base64, on the grounds that 
it was being added in EXTENDED-XER. I agree with that.

But Ed opposed that decision because EXTENDED-XER was not yet publicly 
available.  I have no problems with Ed's position.  But it means that 
that solution is not agreed.

A subsequent proposed solution was a kind of fudging of the issue with a 
hex encoding of a Base64 encoding of the value, which I don't think was 
ever agreed.  Certainly if that fudge had been clear to me (and here we 
come to problems with lack of clarity in the document in this area, and 
perhaps lack of discussion of this technical issue) I would not have 
supported that proposal.  It is technically a nonsense, I believe, 
introducing overheads with no gain.

Another solution was to delay progression in OASIS until Base64 became 
available in late summer, or to proceed once the ISO FCD ballot was 
started.  That also was not agreed.

The third proposed solution was not to use Base64 at all.  That is my 
own preferred position, given Ed's opposition to using a standard that 
is not yet finalised.  But you seem not to accept that either.

So ...

... whatever, I believe that your statement that "This is not what we 
agreed in the CS" is wrong.  In *this* area, I think there has been NO 
agreement (yet) in the CS - ***that is the problem***.

It would be horrible to lose the ship for what is a ha'pth of tar.  Is 
the Base64 stuff THAT important?

*** But if you want to continue to press for it, we must reach a 
consensus on its use and how to proceed. ****

This is the only problem with what is otherwise an excellent Standard, 
it should not founder just for this.

John L


Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> This is not what we agreed in the CS.
> 
> And this would not be compatible with X9.84.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> Bancroft Scott wrote:
> 
>> Phil,
>>
>> The crux of the problem that we are having lies around the fact that XCBF
>> is using Base64 as an encoding, but Base64 is not available in the 
>> current
>> version of X.693.  Given this, plus the fact that that only the
>> EnvelopedData and SignedData types carry certificates and CRLs, and that
>> even in these cases, the certificates and CRLs components are optional
>> (and in practice never used), it would solve all our problems if XCBF 
>> used
>> straight XER and/or CXER encoding.
>>
>> In other words, I propose that we drop the use of (currently non-standard
>> in XER/CXER) Base64 in XCBF and instead stick to HEX encoding as required
>> by XER/CXER.  This would resolve the concerns that everyone, including Ed
>> Day, has voiced.
>>
>> Bancroft
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
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