[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!
Ben,
Regarding "secret" standards
Seeing the virtually ZERO progress on the biometric part of QC, I get the feeling it may be
a better idea (if speed counts) to keep things within a group with members that are more focused
on solutions rather than just making "noise" or running private political campaigns (Ed & Co).
There are currently several consortiums that are competing (and sometimes
cooperating) with IEITF. Like W3C, WAP-forum, OBI-forum, Bluetooth etc. etc.
More is in the works which I am not allowed to mention.
All these consortiums release drafts for public review when a draft has reached a
certain level of perfection. These consortiums though keep the final decision-part internally.
Anders
PS. ZERO progress = no explanations to the raised interoperability questions, or comments to
"competing" solutions like user certificate selection DS
----------
From: Ben Laurie [SMTP:ben@algroup.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 10:38
To: PKIX-List
Subject: Re: QC biometrics needs re-engineering NOW!
Anders Rundgren wrote:
> # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
> But this discussion is a pure waste of time as biometrics in certificates have already
> been "standardized" by another group. I cannot tell which one right now as I received
> this information privately. And Steve, they of course choosed in-line bio-data!
> # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
>
> BTW, *their* draft looks real good and supports 20 different biometrics.
A secret "standard", eh? That'll be really useful.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi