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

Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-06-11

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:31:23 +0200
To: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080610133123.GN860@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>

Mez,

I'd appreciate if we could look at the other actions that I moved
out of the way last Friday; see my pending review actions here:

  http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/users/36886

I'd in particular like to know whether people are fine with my
proposed resolution for ACTION-481:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0018.html

I still owe the conformance text (ACTION-446), but hope to be done
with that in time for the call tomorrow.

Also, what's our plan for ACTION-453?  I see a proposal and some
discussion, so maybe it's worth spending some call time on it.

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0023.html

Thanks,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>





On 2008-06-10 09:22:11 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:22:11 -0400
> Subject: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-06-11
> List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
> 	public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org designates 128.30.52.56 as permitted sender)
> 	smtp.mail=public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org
> Archived-At:
> 	<http://www.w3.org/mid/OF6A342098.BCB0A091-ON85257460.0041D8CC-85257464.004970D9@LocalDomain
> 	>
> X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=1.1.6
> 
>        Web Security Context (WSC) Call Agenda
> 
> Calling information:
> Wednesday, 11 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#D20080611
> 
> 
> 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
> Not available at the time of writing 
> 
> 3) Weekly completed action items
> (Usually checkpointed Friday am, US East Coast time) 
> [pending review] ACTION-434: Anil Saldhana to Add robustness-obscuring 
> xrefs to identity signal and TLS signal - due 2008-05-31
> [pending review] ACTION-453: Yngve Pettersen to Provide initial draft of 
> security considerations for EV mixed with DV case - due 2008-05-30
> 
> 4) Open Action Items
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0007.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 Firefox this week. Johnthan is this discussion; he is welcome to 
> others. 
> What version of Firefox 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 Firefox 
> expects to cover, and which not. 
> 
> 8) Next meeting - 18 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. 
> 
> Finish up going over Opera 9.50 as a conforming implementation to test 
> against.
> Yngve, Jan Vidar, and Claudio will be required. Perhaps next week? 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 10 June 2008 13:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 June 2008 13:32:01 GMT