Groups - DRAFT-03-06-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.odt uploaded

Submitter's message

        Please review these minutes from the March 6th, 2010 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee for approval at our upcoming meeting, subject to any specified changes. Thanks.
        

-- Jeff Waters
        
    

    
        Document Name: DRAFT-03-06-12-Minutes-IF-Subcommittee.odt

        
        Description

        At the March 6th, 2012 meeting of the Infrastructure Framework

subcommittee, the members continued to review and resolve comments from the

public review of the draft DE 2.0.  The members discussed the following

topics: 

1.  TOPIC: Is ?classified/unclassified? sufficient for default terms for

confidentiality?    (Answer: Yes. A concern was raised that these terms may

suggest that confidentiality is slanted toward government or Department of

Defense use, but that is not the case. Picking other terms raises its own

set of issues.  The consensus opinion is that ?classified/unclassified? is

generic and will encourage users to think about and select a more

appropriate list from the appropriate domain, without this standard picking

one over another.)  

2.  TOPIC EMFW-17: Should we add a section up front in the specification to

better explain how to link Distribution Element 2.0 (DE 2.0) objects?   

(Answer: Yes. A motion was approved to ?Add Section 1.3.5 'Linking Content

Objects and Other DE Components' and provide a better explanation of this

topic in one spot and reference it in those elements that enable

linking?.)

3.  TOPIC EMFW-16: Should we move the current section 3.2.10, explaining

the common elements, up front in the specification since prefixes like

?ct:? are used in the specification prior to the explanation?    (Answer:

Yes. A motion was approved to ?Add to the specification a section 1.3.6

'Common Elements' and move the content of Section 3.2.10 to this new

section 1.3.6 and fix the reference to 'edxl-cig' to 'edxl-ct' for the

geopolitical location type. ?) 

4.  TOPIC EMFW-15: Can users adequately distinguish a DE 2.0 message from a

DE 1.0 message?    (Answer: Yes.  A DE 2.0 message can be distinguished by

it's namespace, and by validating the message against the DE 2.0 schema. A

motion was approved that ?No change needed. The namespace and validation

according to the schema is the way to tell what version you are using.?)

5.  TOPIC EMFW-14 and 13: What type of signing is appropriate for the DE

2.0 and is the location of ##other sufficient to enable this?    (Answer:

The consensus was that the signing component of the DE should allow for

signing the entire message when the EDXLDistribution wrapper element is

used. Signing ensures receivers can verify the integrity of an entire DE

message; however, signing of content objects themselves should be left to

the creators of those content objects and enabled by the corresponding

content object schema, not the DE 2.0. The location of ##other needs

further review to determine whether it is in the correct spot in the

schema. Motion: ?Our intent is to allow signing of the entire DE 2.0 when

the EDXLDistribution wrapper is used, but otherwise content providers are

responsible for their own signing and encryption of their content objects

and if DE 2.0 components, like Content, are used with other wrappers then

the user is responsible for signing using whatever mechanisms are provided

by the other wrapper.?)

References:

(1) JIRA DE 2.0 Issues List:

http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=10084        

        Download Latest Revision

        Public Download Link
        
        Submitter: Jeff Waters

                Group: EM Infrastructure Framework SC

        Folder: Resources

        Date submitted: 2012-03-13 01:38:46