Subject: Re: TAP (in favor)

From: "Carl Wallace" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:20:17 -0500

The current draft mentions, but does not define, alternative (i.e.
XML-based) submission request formats.  It requires support for ASN.1-based
objects for retrieval/deletion purposes.  Given the relative infrequency of
retrieval operations and the fact that an XML-based retrieval structure
would carry some ASN.1 payloads, this sort of accommodation seems
reasonable.

If the straw poll is still going on, I am in favor of pursuing a trusted
archive spec as a PKIX work item.

Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: TAP

>
> Steve,
>
> Some thoughts and questions, if you could elaborate.
>
> Doesn't this come very close to the aspects of reality that would be
> suitable for OASIS, if it wasn't for the fact that TAP as proposed is
based
> on ASN.1 and not XML.?
>
> Has then PKIX become the body for ASN.1 based application standards for
> anything related to PKI?
> Had this been suitable for PKIX if the proposed protocol was XML based?
>
> /Stefan

---

From: "Peter Hesse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:45:14 -0500

I'll throw my hat into the ring and recommend that PKIX take up the TAP
spec as a work item.

---

From: J Adrian Pickering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:42:16 +0100

>I'll throw my hat into the ring and recommend that PKIX take up the TAP

I'll add my support to this. However, I'm sympathetic to it being spun off 
into an APPS area if this judged appropriate. What must not happen is that 
such applications/interfaces fail to find a home. I think most agree that, 
in principle, TAP is important.

Adrian Pickering/
ECS, University of Southampton, UK