Yep. 3 eyes are better than one :) I will get the ball rolling.
-- dims
On 5/31/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > The WS-PMC has VOTE'd to accept the project.
>
> Excellent. As Dw indicated, having you and the WS PMC on-board will
> alleviate any co
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> The WS-PMC has VOTE'd to accept the project.
Excellent. As Dw indicated, having you and the WS PMC on-board will
alleviate any concerns over collaboration with other parts of the ASF
working in this space. I do note concerns raised by Sanjiva, which should
be addressed
Hans,
The WS-PMC has VOTE'd to accept the project. Please send in the
required documents including your individual CLA (iCLA) as mentioned
here - http://www.apache.org/licenses/. I will start the
infrastructure process(es) like mailing list, JIRA, SVN etc.
thanks,
dims
On 5/17/05, Granqvist, Han
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
This strikes me as orthogonal, but it might be of interest that I'm
currently working on a to-be-BSD-licensed (or equivalent) PGP C library.
BTW, its properly called OpenPGP.
Mm, seems to me that's an encumbered name.. I've got an OpenPGP plug
Sander Striker wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
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?
This strikes me as orthogonal, but it mig
On 23-05-2005 18:55, "Granqvist, Hans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would prefer to see us put a requirement that during
>> incubation the project must build meaningful ties into the
>> other WS projects - via cross committers and interdependency.
>> That requires the marriage that you envision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> This strikes me as orthogonal, but it might be of interest that I'm
> currently working on a to-be-BSD-licensed (or equivalent) PGP C library.
> BTW, its properly called OpenPGP.
Mm, seems to me that's an encumbered name.. I've got an Ope
Ben Laurie wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
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?
This strikes me as orthogonal, but it might be of interest that I'm
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Dims raised the same issue to me, so there is a common thread there. Would
this also help to resurrect JuiCE? And, again, be aware of the proposed PGP
package for Jakarta Commons, targeting package signing.
Just having sorted out the *&^% CLA issue may help JuiCE along
Granqvist, Hans wrote:
I realize that it may sound a bit vague, but I hope that I manage to
convey that there is nothing intrinsic about TSIK that precludes, say,
the ASF xmlsec project to be reimplemented with a completely different set
of APIs -- I think Apache could use several available lay
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> 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?
>
> This strikes me a
>> Rather than trying to implement 100% of a specific standard,
>> we wanted to provide simplified APIs that would make sense
>> in most use cases. However, what's implemented will always
>> be to specification.
>
> So this only works if the standard permits a subset implementation?
That is corre
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> 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?
This strikes me as orthogonal, but it might be of interest that I'm
currently working
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Phil Steitz wrote:
> +1
+1 - and would be happy to help mentoring this if needed. My main worries
are the overlap with existing xml sig/sec work and existing WS work along
with the various licensing, patents and what not issues. Seeing Dim's on
board alleviates most of the
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> I'm +1 on this (with the concomitant committment to help out -
> I'll even mentor if necessary
That'd probably be helpful.
> The XML Security team probably an equivalent level of overlap to the WS
> project. The proposal discusses xml-sig/xml-enc and XKMS, all of which
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
+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
20 matches
Mail list logo
