W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-usable-authentication@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Secure Chrome (and secure browsing mode)

From: James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:32:51 +1000
Message-ID: <4492A4F3.60804@echeque.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
CC: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-usable-authentication@w3.org

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
 > I agree with Mez except that in addition to being
 > timely, I see the outbound issue as one where there is
 > a pretty clear standards need and W3C is the only
 > likely contender as a forum.
 > The problem of password management is currently
 > recognized by at least four groups - OpenID, DIX,
 > SAML, Cardbase/Higgins. And there is the WARP BOF
 > planned for the IETF in Montreal, work in OASIS and so
 > on. The primary political objective has to be to gain
 > some unity of direction and viewpoint and hopefully
 > make 4 = 1.

This four = one, build consensus, business does not seem
to be working.

DK and DKIM are killing each other - there was no reason
or justification for DKIM - the DK people should never
have compromised. DKIM is dead in the water and always
has been, but since it is theoretically the standard,
people are holding off on adopting DK

Similarly the attempt to construct a compromise between
SPF and Sender-ID turned into a complete catastrophe,
that the SPF people originally agreed to, but are now
backing away from as fast as possible.

The problem is that a reasonable willingness to
compromise tends to attact every asshole with a
particular interest like flies to rotting meat.
Willingness to make reasonable concessions for the sake
of unity inevitably results in the demand for utterly
unreasonable concessions. Everyone is trying to make
spam remedies tow their particular wagon.

          James A. Donald
Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 12:33:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:15 UTC