W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-06-04

From: Serge Egelman <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:05:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4845A415.60505@cs.cmu.edu>
To: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
CC: public-wsc-wg@w3.org

Regrets, I have another meeting.

serge

Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> 
>         Web Security Context (WSC) Call Agenda
> 
> Calling information:
> Wednesday, 04 June 2008
> 11:00 am - 12:30 pm Eastern time_
> __http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/#meetings__
> __http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20080604_ 
> <http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20071031>
> 
> 
> Agenda
> 
> 1) Pick a scribe _
> __http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/cheatsheet#Scribing__
> __http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/scribes_
> 
> 2) Approve minutes from meetings
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/21-wsc-minutes.html
> // still missing f2f and 05/28
> 
> 3) Weekly completed action items
> (Usually checkpointed Friday am, US East Coast time)
> [pending review] ACTION-425: Anil Saldhana to Incorporate agreed text 
> for ISSUE-116 - due 2008-05-29
> [pending review] ACTION-435: Anil Saldhana to Update 7.1.2 to contain 
> the proposed text (superceding earlier changes) - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-436: Anil Saldhana to Update section 7.4.1 with 
> the proposed text - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-439: Anil Saldhana to Remove relaxed path 
> validation section and references - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-442: Anil Saldhana to Rephrase 5.1.6 as 
> described - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-443: Anil Saldhana to Include proposal v6 
> changes to 6.4.4 - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-447: Anil Saldhana to Petname refinement on 
> presentation - due 2008-05-23
> [pending review] ACTION-448: Anil Saldhana to clarify cert status and 
> network errors - due 2008-06-04
> [pending review] ACTION-450: Anil Saldhana to Update section 5.3 to 
> include proposal 2 text - due 2008-05-29
> [pending review] ACTION-455: Johnathan Nightingale to Dd that wording to 
> 5.1.2 - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-476: Tyler Close to Create list of usability 
> claims and issues for potential testing of petnames section 5.1.6 - due 
> 2008-05-28
> 
> 4) Open Action Items_
> _http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008May/0094.html
> 
> 5) Action items closed due to inactivity
> None.
> 
> 6) Agenda bashing
> 
> 7) Conforming Implementations
> Needed for CR exit.
> We'll need at least two conforming implementations to test against. 
> We're currently targeting (at least) Opera and Firefox.
> Discuss Opera this week. Yngve and Jan Vidar are required for this 
> dicussion; they may bring others.
> What version of Opera will we test?
> What can we expect in terms of MUSTs, SHOULDs, etc.
> Will we have gaps?
> We'll walk through the spec, logging which RFC 2119 statements Opera 
> expects to cover, and which not.
> 
> 8) Next meeting - 11 June 2008
> 
> We need to wrap up actions and issues so we can go to last call. _
> __http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/products/4_
> All issues besides 188 and 199 will be closed when their associated 
> actions are closed.
> We'll do the final cleanup on 188 and 199 at that time.
> Double check issue 201
> 
> Firefox as a conforming implementation to test against.
> Johnathan will be required. Perhaps next week?
> 
> Topics for future meetings, carried over from the Oslo agenda:
> 
> What else beyond June?
> What, if anything, other than taking wsc-xit through LC to CR entry to 
> CR exit (to recommendation) would we like to do after June? What would 
> we be capable of doing? What should we, or someone like us, do?
> Some ideas:
> o Authoring best practices for (usably) secured sites. Some of the 
> things we've wanted to recommend haven't been obviously in the scope of 
> enabling security context information for user trust decisions. Should 
> we ask for a charter clarification/change or new WG to do this?
> o Dealing with mixed content (there's some feeling that there might be 
> more to do here).
> o Providing guidance or expertise to other standards efforts that touch 
> on usable security. Can we provide guidance on how to deal with user 
> expectations and implications when protocol security is 
> designed/standardized? To do? Not to do?
> 

-- 
/*
PhD Candidate
Carnegie Mellon University

"Whoever said there's no such thing as a free lunch was never a grad 
student."

All views contained in this message, either expressed or implied, are 
the views of my employer, and not my own.
*/
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 20:06:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 June 2008 20:06:35 GMT