Hi all,
#2 sounds like a good choice to me, too, and is my recommendation as well.
Michael
On 05/07/10 20:51, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> We've been discussing this on the list for a few days now. I think we're
> getting a better feel for the scope of what needs to be done, thanks to
> David's recent notes. . But I haven't seen a specific proposal yet. I'm
> having some IBM colleagues look at this issue as well, since it is outside
> of my expertise. But I will comment quickly on what our options are at
> this point:
>
> 1) Continue discussing and delay ODF 1.2 until we have a resolution.
>
> 2) Continue discussing, send ODF 1.2 out for public review knowing that
> this issue is open, and commit to resolving it when the public review
> ends. But know that changes made after the public review would trigger
> another 15-day public review of those changes.
>
> 3) Remove the feature from ODF 1.2.
>
> 4) Do nothing in ODF 1.2, but address this area in a future revision.
>
> 5) Convince ourselves that there is not a problem ;-)
>
> Are there any other options I've missed?
>
> I think if we have the right people looking at this area, we should be
> able to resolve it in ODF 1.2. So to me that sounds like option #1 or #2.
>
>
> Since the digital signature feature is not broadly entangled in the other
> features of ODF 1.2, I think it can be reviewed and revised without
> invalidating the review performed on other parts of specification. So I'm
> inclined to recommend that we pick option #2.
>
> I reminded of the saying, 'Never code standing up', meaning if you are in
> a rush to leave the office, and you already have your hat on, and you are
> making one last change to the code while standing up to put on your coat,
> then you are asking for trouble. I think we want to also avoid specifying
> security-related ODF features standing up. Let's take a couple of months,
> during the public review of ODF 1.2, to figure out exactly what needs to
> be done here. This will allow us to continue discussions at a deliberate,
> but unrushed pace. We could continue discussions on the main TC list. Or
> if we wanted to have a separate list and maybe a series of meetings on the
> subject (yes, more meetings) we could choose to form a "ODF Security
> Subcommittee".
>
> Any thoughts on the process side of this, before we get back to discussing
> the details of XAdES? In particular, any objections to #2?
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Jürgen Kunz