W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Updated plans for face to face meeting, and results of questionnaire

From: Oda, Terri <terri.oda@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:10:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CACoC0R9PRv28zNFY-cbViYGWTQC36T9O9PVBjWD-nN0BX1jJOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, public-sysapps@w3.org
FIDO, at least, will a topic of discussion at the WebCrypto workshop in
September:

http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/webcrypto-next-workshop/Overview.html

That workshop is in Mountain View on Sept 10-11th


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-05-22 17:00, Dave Raggett wrote:
>
> There is actually a huge and documented interest in Security Element APIs:
>
> https://fidoalliance.org/assets/downloads/Microsoft_
> Joins_FIDO_Alliance_Board.pdf
> http://fidoalliance.org/assets/downloads/Samsung_joins_FIDO_Alliance_BoD__
> FINAL__04_22_14.pdf
> http://fidoalliance.org/assets/downloads/ARM_FIDO_
> Board_04_22_2014_FINAL.pdf
> http://fidoalliance.org/news/item/the-fido-alliance-
> welcomes-visa-to-the-board-of-directors
> https://fidoalliance.org/news/item/the-fido-alliance-
> welcomes-global-financial-leader-bank-of-america-to-board
>
> Regarding the use of signatures for hosted web applications, I agree that
> the
> traditional use of signed code doesn't bring much value to the table.
> However, there are *other* trusted and hosted web application schemes for
> which
> signatures will be mandatory.  These are like FIDO/U2F developed in other
> forums.
>
> Anders
>
>
>  First of all, sorry for the delay with the details of the proposed
>> meeting on the trust/permissions for web applications and work items for
>> a rechartered SysApps working group.
>>
>> Given the delays Wonsuk Lee and I are now looking at the beginning of
>> September,  either 2nd or 3rd, or 3rd and 4th, as Wonsuk is on vacation
>> the following week. Would these work for you?  Wonsuk would prefer the
>> meeting to take place in Europe since this is where most of the current
>> SysApps participants are located. We are now looking for a host for a
>> venue within easy reach of a major airport.
>>
>> As a reminder, the focus of the meeting would be on discussing the
>> trust/permissions model for access to extended capabilities for the Open
>> Web Platform, and to discuss proposals for work items for the
>> rechartering.
>>
>> Many thanks for responding to the questionnaire.  There was strong
>> support for each of the following:
>>
>>      a) web apps need access to more advanced capabilities and features
>> than they currently have
>>      b) users should have control over the capabilities available to
>> apps, along with the means to revoke these rights
>>      c) asking the user for permission at the time of use is promising,
>> although not appropriate for all capabilities
>>      d) asking the user for consent up front when the app is "installed"
>> or first run is also of value
>>      e) app manifests should be one of the preconditions for apps to gain
>> access to richer capabilities
>>
>> There was weak interest in the potential for digital signatures as part
>> of attestation for hosted apps on the Open Web Platform. We didn't get
>> many suggestions on ideas for future work other than for Bluetooth
>> profiles support, and for continued work on the trust/permissions model
>> as an extension of existing practice on the Open Web Platform.
>>
>> Here are the numbers for which APIs people have plans to implement, and
>> which APIs people would like to see widely deployed. The third number is
>> the sum of the previous two and gives a broader feel for the level of
>> interest:
>>
>> App URI                4    5    9
>> TCP UDP Sockets        4    4    8
>> Task Scheduler         2    5    7
>> Bluetooth              3    4    7
>> Media Storage          3    4    7
>> Network Interface      4    3    7
>> App Lifecycle          3    3    6
>>
>> Contacts               2    3    5
>> Data Store             2    2    4
>> Device Capabilities    2    2    4
>> Idle                   2    2    4
>> Secure Elements        2    1    3
>>
>> Calendar               1    1    2
>> System Settings        1    1    2
>> Messaging              1    -    1
>> Telephony              1    -    1
>>
>> We would be likely to drop the bottom group of specifications as they
>> wouldn't be able to satisfy W3C's criteria for exiting the Candidate
>> Recommendation phase.  The middle group are at risk, but the top group
>> have strong support. The general idea is to identify capabilities that
>> would have broad appeal to web developers as part of the Open Web
>> Platform.  In principle, there could be new capabilities beyond those
>> listed above and these could come from new participants to the working
>> group, however, rechartering with a modest scope would seem like a good
>> plan.
>>
>> Many thanks for your help, and please get in touch if you would be
>> interested in hosting the meeting.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 16:11:15 UTC

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