First - I'm +1 on this (with the concomitant committment to help out -
I'll even mentor if necessary, although my time is often limited at the
moment).
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This looks alright, but I have some questions. First, why isn't the WS PMC
sponsoring this as WS-TSIK?
The XML Secu
On May 21, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
There is no need to Cc this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This stuff is a concern of the project.
OK, I'm sorry for that, just learning the correct procedures...
No need to be sorry -- David is confused. Incubator is the projec
+1
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Friday, May 20, 2005 9:58 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I also didn't vote, but would vote +1. Maybe I'm too much of a
stickler for process, but I was waiting for a [VOTE] email to
follow-up on the "Proposal" thread. Although I realize it's not
uncommon for a proposal
+1
Phil
Granqvist, Hans wrote:
Proposal
This is a proposal to submit the Trust Services Integration
Toolkit (TSIK) to ASF. TSIK is a Java toolkit that VeriSign
has been developing since 2001, and it is the basis of several
products developed by VeriSign.
The intent with Apache TS
Noel,
will ask the WS-PMC.
thanks,
dims
On 5/21/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This looks alright, but I have some questions. First, why isn't the WS PMC
> sponsoring this as WS-TSIK?
>
> There is a proposed "PGP" package being discussed in Jakarta Commons. Would
> there be
This looks alright, but I have some questions. First, why isn't the WS PMC
sponsoring this as WS-TSIK?
There is a proposed "PGP" package being discussed in Jakarta Commons. Would
there be any overlap at lower levels (not at the WS layer) between them,
providing for some collaboration?
> The int
I assume that
--> org.apache.tsik.xmlsigXML decryption
is meant to be this:
--> org.apache.tsik.xmlsigXML signature
I think it's a great idea.
Anne
On 5/20/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> please send feedback directly on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> tha
Hi,
David Crossley wrote:
There is no need to Cc this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This stuff is a concern of the project.
OK, I'm sorry for that, just learning the correct procedures...
Based on previous committer votes I was under the impression that the
Incubator PMC should participate in the vot
