W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Liaisons needed

From: Dan Schutzer <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:07:22 -0400
To: "'Johnathan Nightingale'" <johnath@mozilla.com>, "'Mary Ellen Zurko'" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016901c7b8ff$289652e0$6500a8c0@dschutzer>
FSTC works with APWG and FBI. We can serve as a liaison with these two



From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:01 PM
To: Mary Ellen Zurko
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Liaisons needed


On 27-Jun-07, at 4:54 PM, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

The suggestions we have for groups to liaison with to get a review of
wsc-usecases are:


Of course participants are expected to work with their member organizations
to get appropriate review of all WG deliverables. 

Who will act as liaison to these? RSVP. 

Did I miss any? 


I think CABForum is in there by mistake. I mentioned CABForum in passing in
my note about talking with law enforcement, but I don't actually think
CABForum is a good candidate to review our work. Their mandate is to specify
the details of EV certs, and the guidelines have been careful and deliberate
in their *avoidance* of any mention of UI treatment.


They'd obviously be happy to hear that we had recommendations like Secure
Letterhead, or Identity Signal, which give UI emphasis to EV technologies,
but beyond that I don't see them as contributing an important perspective.
It's also worth noting that CABForum right now is exclusively CAs (which we
have represented in our group already) and browser vendors (ditto).


So without having any meaningful liasons to offer, I'm hoping I just axed
25% of the work here. :)







Johnathan Nightingale

Human Shield



Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:07:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:16 UTC