> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 00:51
> To: Alessandro Triglia
> Cc: '[OASIS XCBF]'
> Subject: Re: [xcbf] Interpretation of the CS under ballot
>
>
> Allesandro,
>
> If you read the comment resolutions document that I posted to
> this list prior to the current ballot, you will see that the
> comment you refer to
> below was rejected.
1) Phil Griffin made that comment, which proves that he was as confused
as I am, with regard to the use of BASE-64 in messages being exchanged.
2) The comment was not rejected by the TC, it was rejected by the Chair.
I haven't seen any resolution of the TC accepting/rejecting the comments
to the previous ballot. Indeed, the current ballot will decide if the
document resulting from those rejections/acceptances is approved or not
by the TC.
> Instead, the more simple approach offered by
> member Ed Day was adopted.
Again, it was not adopted, yet.
>
> As Ed pointed out, in using his approach there will be no
> backwards compatibility problems with existing
> implementations if we should adopt your "encoding control"
> idea in the future - assuming the solution you
> now propose actually becomes a part of the ASN.1 standards.
>
> Your approach would cause problems later with existing applications
> of XCBF. By adopting Ed's solution, users can deploy today with
> confidence that future XCBF work will not cause problems for
> their customers.
Let's wait and see what the TC decides about this.
Alessandro
