W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

updated draft charter - SE Access droping from charter

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:49:06 +0200
To: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
CC: W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1126F161F6F1B24FABD92B850CAFBD6E013A20BBA36E@CROEXCFWP04.gemalto.com>
Suresh and all,

This is just to answer one of your suggestion to drop the secure element access to the NFC WG. Your suggestion makes sense in a way that accessing a secure element could be made thanks to NFC technology (and I have been promoting that on the public NFC WG mailing list). Nevertheless, it is not the only way it can be accessed. The API we have been sharing with this mailing list is actually generic in terms of physical access. It describes means for an application to 'see' a new secure element and exchange APDU messages with it, whatever is the physical interface used - contact or contactless. We believe it is a good mean to avoid API duplication across W3C. I think it makes more sense to have it in SysApp WG rather than in NFC WG, as the NFC context may be too restrictive. 
Hope it helps. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Chitturi [mailto:schitturi@rim.com] 
Sent: mardi 5 juin 2012 21:45
To: Adam Barth; Dave Raggett
Cc: W3C SysApps
Subject: RE: updated draft charter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:30 PM
> To: Dave Raggett
> Cc: W3C SysApps
> Subject: Re: updated draft charter
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
> > Following the discussion that it should be up to the working group 
> > to prioritize work items even if this means that not all of them are 
> > completed within the two year initial charter period. I have added 
> > back the deliverables that were dropped when splitting them into 
> > phase one and two. The phase two deliverables are now listed in 
> > alphabetical order. If you feel we should drop one or more 
> > deliverables, this is now a good time to argue your case before we proceed to the AC Review.
> I believe we should drop all the Phase 2 deliverables except the following list:
> Accounts API
> Bluetooth API
> Calendar API
> Contacts API
> Media Storage API
> Network Interface API
> Resource Lock API
> Secure Elements API
> Serial API
> System Settings API

This seems like a more reasonable set of deliverables. 
Wouldn't it make sense to move Secure Elements API to NFC WG? It appears the uses cases are related....
And maybe replace it with Messaging API (as it is almost necessary and can addresses many use cases on mobile platform).


> The biggest risk I see for this working group is that we try to work 
> on too many deliverables at once.  If we do that, we'll have 
> insufficient expertise to review the work, and we'll end up producing 
> a bunch of low-quality specifications that won't be widely 
> implemented.  We've seen this failure mode in previous working groups, 
> and we should learn from those experiences and avoid it here.
> >From a practical point of view, we're going to need to narrow down 
> >the
> deliverables at some point.  I'd much prefer to agree on a shorter 
> list now before I commit to investing resources in this working group.
> Adam
> > We are looking for horizontal reviews of the draft charter from the 
> > perspectives of security, privacy, accessibility and internationalization.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
> >

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 16:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:09 UTC