W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Require security review before FPWD

From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:54:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEeYn8htd3We=wieBrDyQqAfRuoXTo60W=irGeASS_8iUx0VmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
I think we can definitely announce the discussion on public-webappsec,
but it's probably a good idea to encourage folks to also follow
public-web-security.  I think that the current volume of email on the
webappsec list actually risks this getting lost.  I can barely keep up
myself these last two weeks.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> We could probably overload the WebAppSec list for a dicussion, as it's
> seeing a post-TPAC rebound in participation (and is also rechartering). That
> might also be a reasonable place to publish a Note, assuming the TAG doesn't
> want to pick it up. (+Brad Hill)
>
> -mike
>
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91
>
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
> Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:50 AM, GALINDO Virginie
> <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
>>
>> Chaals, David, Jeff,
>>
>> Direct answer to the Web Security IG involvement in delivering security
>> guidelines...
>> - The Web Security IG has been re-born one year ago, the dynamic of the
>> Web Security IG is still low (10 people maximum, all overbooked)
>> - Developing those guidelines were part of my goal as co-chair (see
>> https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG#Current_Work_Items_for_the_Web_Security_IG)
>> - I believe that if the W3C were to decide to develop the guidelines,
>> based on Mike's straw man proposal, that would be great.
>> - The Web Security IG could be a mean to gather the appropriate people,
>> organize the work and make sure something is delivered (provided that we can
>> get on board some contributors)
>> - and finally, changing my hat, wearing my gemalto hat, we would be
>> delighted to participate...
>>
>> Virginie
>> Co-chair web security IG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
>> Sent: vendredi 7 novembre 2014 13:57
>> To: David Singer
>> Cc: Jeff Jaffe; GALINDO Virginie; Karl Dubost; Anne van Kesteren; Philippe
>> Le Hegaret; public-w3process
>> Subject: Re: Require security review before FPWD
>>
>>
>>
>> 07.11.2014, 13:08, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>:
>> > On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:02 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> >>  04.11.2014, 15:25, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>:
>> >>>  On 11/4/2014 3:40 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>> >>>>  +1 for the guidelines,
>> >>>  Would the Security IG be the right place to develop those guidelines?
>> >>  They would be the obvious group to have them as a deliverable. But
>> >> in the nature of things, they probably should look around for
>> >> expertise in other groups to help make the guidelines as good as we
>> >> can get them…
>> >>
>> >>  cheers
>> >
>> > I think the community as a whole should develop the guidelines, and if
>> > we don’t get input from the security IG then I am not sure we’d have a good
>> > set of guidelines.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > But the model that ‘the XXX IG is responsible for developing the
>> > guidelines’ or, worse, ‘the primary responsibility for an XXX review lies
>> > with the YYY IG’, is flawed.
>>
>> These are very different. Asking "the whole community" to publish and
>> maintain the document falls into the "4 people" trap (everybody, somebody,
>> anybody nobody) and makes it difficult to work out how to resolve issues
>> (including that the document was maintained by nobody).
>>
>> >  This is, in effect, signing up IGs for open-ended amounts of work.
>> > The primary responsibility for ensuring that XXX has had consideration
>> > in a document, lies with the group that wants to publish that
>> > document,
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> > and in this case, the primary responsibility for developing requirements
>> > and guidelines in the process for XXX reviews lies with the group that is
>> > working on the process — the process G and the AB, with the AC and staff.
>>
>> That seems to be signing up the process CG to produce the deliverable.
>> Which is a priori a reasonable alternative proposal - but I think not the
>> right choice.
>>
>> There is a requirement to discuss the technical aspects of
>> privacy/accessibility/security/etc in order to make the guidelines as useful
>> as we can. Very little of the required expertise is in the Process CG, and
>> it isn't in the scope of the Process CG.
>>
>> > Yes, we want the security IG’s (and privacy IG’s, and…) help.  No, it is
>> > not their deliverable.
>>
>> I think that the relevant IGs are in fact the best home for the various
>> guidelines, and I think making them deliverables of the respective IGs is in
>> fact the right thing to do - while recognising that the responsibility for
>> getting the reviews rests not with the IGs but the producers of whatever
>> spec needs review.
>>
>> (And that's what you get for 2 kopecks these days)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> > David Singer
>> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>> ________________________________
>>  This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
>> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
>> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for
>> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
>> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
>> transmitted virus.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 05:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC