Version 0.9 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label meta-data is carried in XMPP, when this
meta-data
should or should not be provided, and how the meta-data
Version 0.9 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label meta-data is carried in XMPP, when this
meta-data
should or should not be provided, and how the meta-data
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
I think this document is near ready for advancement to Draft.
I encourage you to now review (or re-review) the document. Please raise any
technical issue to this list. If you have no technical issues to raise,
On 8/16/11 2:26 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
I think this document is near ready for advancement to Draft.
I encourage you to now review (or re-review) the document. Please raise any
technical issue to this list. If
On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Ludovic BOCQUET wrote:
Le 11/08/2011 22:23, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
Version 0.8 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security
On 8/15/11 11:08 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Ludovic BOCQUET wrote:
Le 11/08/2011 22:23, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
Version 0.8 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP.
I think this document is near ready for advancement to Draft.
I encourage you to now review (or re-review) the document. Please raise any
technical issue to this list. If you have no technical issues to raise, please
note so to the list.
Please raise editorial issue directly with me.
Le 11/08/2011 22:23, XMPP Extensions Editor a écrit :
Version 0.8 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this
metadata
Version 0.8 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this metadata
should or should not be provided, and how the metadata is
Version 0.7 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this metadata
should or should not be provided, and how the metadata is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/27/09 12:07 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Jul 27 18:00:28 2009, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
But another way to simply respond to your comment is to note that
the JID X is not being
Hi,
On 2009/07/23, at 23:29, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.4 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in
XMPP. The document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when
this
On Mon Jul 27 11:19:12 2009, Pedro Melo wrote:
Section 5:
Otherwise, the clearance input is the nil clearance. The nil
clearance is a clearance for which the ACDF always returns Deny
when given as the clearance input
Isn't this mandating policy trough a XEP? Shouldn't this be left to
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
On 2009/07/23, at 23:29, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Version 0.4 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in
XMPP. The document
specifies how security label
Hi,
On 2009/07/27, at 13:46, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Jul 27 11:19:12 2009, Pedro Melo wrote:
Section 5:
Otherwise, the clearance input is the nil clearance. The nil
clearance is a clearance for which the ACDF always returns Deny
when given as the clearance input
Isn't this mandating
On 2009/07/27, at 16:15, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On 2009/07/23, at 23:29, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
In example 8, the 'to' attribute is misplaced, should be in the top
level iq stanza. Also present in example 9, maybe it should be a
from
On Jul 27, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On 2009/07/27, at 16:15, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On 2009/07/23, at 23:29, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
In example 8, the 'to' attribute is misplaced, should be in the
top level iq stanza. Also
On Jul 27, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On 2009/07/27, at 16:15, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Pedro Melo wrote:
On 2009/07/23, at 23:29, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
In example 8, the 'to' attribute is misplaced, should be in the
top level iq stanza. Also
On Mon Jul 27 18:00:28 2009, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
But another way to simply respond to your comment is to note that
the JID X is not being authoritative for Y, it's being
authoritative for what its willing to allow in the context of Y.
I'd note for the record that even this is not
On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Jul 27 18:00:28 2009, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
But another way to simply respond to your comment is to note that
the JID X is not being authoritative for Y, it's being
authoritative for what its willing to allow in the context of Y.
Version 0.3 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this metadata
should or should not be provided, and how the metadata is
On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
I think it should be generalized further so not be specific to
either ESS or ICISM.
As nothing in the specification calls for use any particular label
format in XMPP. In fact, the first and second implementations of this
specification
On 3/11/09 12:16 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
I think it should be generalized further so not be specific to
either ESS or ICISM.
As nothing in the specification calls for use any particular label
format in
On Wed Mar 11 16:49:05 2009, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
On 3/11/09 12:16 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
Though I am not a GUI guy, I do recall discussion in HTML land
that
not all hexadecimal values are display safe, however
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Mar 11 16:49:05 2009, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
On 3/11/09 12:16 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
Though I am not a GUI guy, I do recall discussion in HTML land that
not
Version 0.2 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released.
Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The
document
specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this metadata
should or should not be provided, and how the metadata is
I think it should be generalized further so not be specific to either ESS or
ICISM. ESS has very little adoption in the real world while ICISM and its
variants are the dominant security label scheme used today.
BTW, Example 2 displaymarking should be U//FOUO or UNCLASSIFIED//FOR
OFFICIAL USE
27 matches
Mail list logo
