- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:21:28 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>
On 2011-11-20, at 16:47 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote: > The reason why we try to have explicit scoping in the charter is because > that: > > 1) IP for W3C RFF is scoped to the charter originally. It's a little more complicated: commitments are made to the recommendations that eventually result from the process. As those documents typically don't exist initially, companies typically evaluate the scope in the charter as a good proxy. Therefore, having a reasonably narrow charter early on tends to be a good idea. > 2) To prevent the group from going down long, winding paths - so the chairs > can rely on the charter to say "out of scope". +1 >> In identifying use-cases, the group shall consider the primary objective >> of meeting the schedule outlined below and may therefore exclude use-cases >> requiring capabilities expected to cause excessive schedule risk. As >> guidance it is expected that access control beyond the same-origin policy, >> management and validation of certificates and device-specific access to >> keying material." The last sentence here seems incomplete. "… is out of scope"?
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 11:21:36 UTC