Carl:
I think Denis asks simply for the justification for the introduction of new
technology to solve a problem which may already be solved with an existing ISO
standard (which has already been published and is presumably more mature than
what is being proposed).
Denis notes (in his previous comment) that perhaps the ISO standard offers too
many options and that perhaps a Profile of this ISO standard might be published
as an RFC to tailor the ISO standard for the specific application(s) you have in
mind. In such a case the RFC should profile (see ISO/IEC TR10000) the ISO
standard and not introduce new technology.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Carl Wallace
Sent: January 11, 2007 10:16 AM
To: Denis Pinkas; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-ltans(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; Tobias Gondrom; Russ Housley
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Last Ca
ll:draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd
My response wasn't a reversal of the question but a request for details. Folks
on the list have previously discussed these specifications, including their use
within an EvidenceRecord. You made a sweeping comment that lacked any details
and called for fairly drastic measures. I simply asked for justification.
_____
From: Denis Pinkas [mailto:denis(_dot_)pinkas(_at_)bull(_dot_)net]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Carl Wallace; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-ltans(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; Russ Housley; Tobias Gondrom
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Last Ca
ll:draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd
Carl,
Please do not reverse the question. ISO 18014-3 already exists. The WG has to
justify why it would not fulfill its needs.
I will refine my question: Why is a profile of ISO 18014-3 not adequate to
fulfill the needs ?
A profile would make sense, since ISO 18014-3 has many options.
Denis