Re: [STDS-P1619] IEEE SISWG E-MOTION 2008-03

[Robert Lockhart <rlockhart@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So how do we do the following:

 

1. Change the wording to "one specific mandatory messaging protocol" versus what it

    currently is which sounds like it leaves the door open to potential additional

    messaging protocols.  Based on your comments below that would require stopping
    this vote and starting a new one which means at least another 30 days.

 

or in case of misinterpreting the meaning

 

2. What is the process for changing ones vote prior to closing of the ballot?  Another

    email?  No can do?

 

I am not a fan of voting this down because I want this to get done sooner than later but I want to make sure we don't leave out low end or existing devices that may be better equipped to handle a binary messaging format versus where it looks like we are headed with just XML.

 

If no one steps forward with a binary format in the near future I will be fine with just XML but the door should not be closed until we are beyond the point that the added work will jeopardize and absolutely impact the projected schedule.

 

Just looking for some clarity,

 

Bob L.

 

ROBERT A. (BOB) LOCKHART

Senior Solutions Architect

 

nCIPHER

http://www.ncipher.com

 

---

From: Eric Hibbard [Eric.Hibbard@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:22 PM
To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] IEEE SISWG E-MOTION 2008-03

Point of order...there is an active letter ballot underway and you don't just go amending it. If there is just cause, you may cancel it, but that case has not been made yet.

The question in the ballot was carefully worded and it is seeking an answer to the issue of whether there shall be a single mandatory messaging protocol with the possibility of other options (but no guarantees).


-Eric

Eric A. Hibbard, CISSP, CISA

Sent from my Blackberry

---

From: Matt Ball
To: STDS-P1619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat Aug 30 07:13:14 2008
Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] IEEE SISWG E-MOTION 2008-03

Hi All,

I suspect that the wording of this motion may not be precise enough to be completely unambiguous.  I wasn't there during the discussion of this motion, but from conversations leading up to the motion, my interpretation was for it to mean "one and only one" mandatory messaging protocol.  If the motion were meant to allow more than one mandatory messaging protocol, it should have been written as "one or more" (to follow the wording of "zero or more optional messaging protocols").

Bob, I don't think that the vote and the comments are aligned, unless you interpreted the motion to mean "one or more" mandatory messaging protocols...

I'd need to look up the exact procedures, but I'd like to propose an amendment to this motion to include the words "and only one" following "Shall P1619.3 require one", and before "mandatory messaging protocol...".

Is this in line with the interpretation from others in the group?

Cheers,
-Matt

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Robert Lockhart <rlockhart@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Shall P1619.3 require one mandatory messaging protocol and zero or more optional messaging protocols to insure interoperability between key management clients and key management servers?"

 

nCipher
Bob Lockhart
Yes

Comments:

nCipher would prefer that KM Clients be required to speak one of two required messaging protocols and KM Servers be required to speak two of two required messaging protocols with zero or more optional messaging protocols.  We would like to see at least one light and/or heavy weight XML messaging protocol and one light weight binary messaging protocol to make the standard more inclusive.

 

Bob L.

 

ROBERT A. (BOB) LOCKHART

Senior Solutions Architect

 

nCIPHER

http://www.ncipher.com

 

--
Thanks!
-Matt

Matt Ball, IEEE P1619.x SISWG Chair
Cell: 303-717-2717
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewvball
http://www.mavaball.net/