[graap-wg] updated draft - signed agreements

[Karl Czajkowski]

I sympathize with your plight, but in some sense this is exactly what
we mean by making it an extension... it is not "in scope" based on the
priorities of the group.

Does it make sense to provide a normative extension for signature in
the basic spec?  My feeling is: not unless we can get security people
to author it and endorse it so it can be developed concurrently and
merged as a small section before the next GGF.

Otherwise, I think the best bet is to write a private/community
extension and lobby for friendly implementors/users to try it out.
This could still happen during the initial wave of experiences with
WS-Agreement, and then that experience could feed a small extension
specification and/or future revisions of WS-Agreement?

karl


On Apr 04, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading:
> Hi Karl,
> 
> Last thread, I promise!
> 
> On the support for signed agreements, the extensibility point you have  
> provided is sufficient.    But, I'm worried that if the only thing in  
> the spec is this extensibility point, then no-one will ever implement  
> the signed agreement stuff.  (I note that the signing stuff isn't  
> domain specific; it could be supported regardless of the stuff that is  
> being agreed.)
> 
> I'd like to at least see some text showing how this could be supported.  
>  Does this belong in the specification, though?  Could some words be  
> added to the job submission example in the spec, when it is being  
> revised, stating what might happen with signing?
> 
> I just feel that if there's nothing in the spec then I'll be almost  
> back to square one.  I won't be able to get any implementation to sign  
> stuff, because the spec doesn't say how this should be done if it is  
> supported.  I'll have to go and write a bunch of stuff myself, and  
> won't get any real interoperability.
> 
> Jon.
> 

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com