Re: "augmented assurance"

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







On 16 Apr 2010, at 15:39, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> so to timeless' question, what they assure is whatever the documented broadly accepted practic says they do? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> To:        Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM@Lotus
> Cc:        Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date:        04/15/2010 09:15 AM
> Subject:        Re: "augmented assurance"
> 
> 
> 
> If I read that sentence correctly, "embodying" would be grammatically wrong.
> 
> Here's a slightly differently packed version of the sentence:
> 
> Some trust anchors adhere to documented broadly accepted practices 
> (e.g. <bibref ref="ref-EV"/>). These involve some level of guarantee that 
> certificates chaining up to those roots embody augmented assurance and 
> can therefore be treated more favorably in terms of the primary security 
> indicators.  We call such certificates "Augmented Assurance Certificates".
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 23:42, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> 
> Thomas, you did not make the change from embody to embodying. So did I not interpret it correctly? Can you give me a different response to timeless' comment below? 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> > > chaining up to those roots embody augmented assurance
> > 
> > 'augmented assurance' is not a defined term, and in this context it's
> > missing an indication of what it's assuring.
> 
> The assurance that is augmented is, I believe, "a statement intended to inspire confidence". The documented processes are meant to augment those assurances. If I'm unpacking it properly, then the natural language might better read "embodying augmented assurances". Other thoughts? 
> 
> 
> 
>