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

Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-06-04 v2

From: Maritza Johnson <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:40:22 -0700
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <B1355A4C-9DCA-49E5-85BE-66DEE2559BD3@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>

Regrets, another meeting.


-- Maritza

	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/



On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

>
> [added the minutes from Rachna and Ian; thanks folks! Sorry I didn't  
> notice them before I sent the first version.]
>
>
>        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
>
>
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/28-wsc-minutes.html
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/13-wsc-minutes.html
> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/14-wsc-minutes.html
>
> 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?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 14:41:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 June 2008 14:41:08 GMT