- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:15:29 +0900
- To: Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com>
- Cc: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>, "public-auto-privacy-security@w3.org" <public-auto-privacy-security@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VUOy3Wwi6b9LfpBxH9tP2CtTdoC_4gQSqfsz27UPP3uw@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for forwarding this to the public-automotive list, Paul! During the WoT IG meeting in Sunnyvale, I mentioned our security&privacy discussion within the Automotive BG/WG and suggested the WoT IG should work with the Automotive group. And Oliver, the moderator of the WoT IG's security&privacy TF, said: - They are interested in the possible collaboration. - However, they would concentrate on their own formalization first. - TPAC 2015 in Sapporo would be a good opportunity to start actual collaboration. Kazuyuki On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com> wrote: > >From the WOT group. Is of interest. > > Paul J. Boyes > -------------------------------- > Mobile: 206-276-9675 > Skype: pauljboyes > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *Resent-From: * <public-wot-ig@w3.org> > *From: *"Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> > *Subject: * *RE: [IG-SP] Review of Security&Privacy Requirements > Catalogue* > *Date: *August 10, 2015 at 7:49:18 AM PDT > *To: *"'Pfaff, Oliver'" <oliver.pfaff@siemens.com>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" > <public-wot-ig@w3.org> > > Hi Oliver and others, > > Thanks for compiling this catalogue. I have some initial comments: > > 1. Maybe each requirements should have a number or any other id. > That would make it easier in discussions and follow-up of requirements. > 2. The list does more look like a the Security&Privacy Glossary in > more detail than a list of requirements. That might be ok depending what we > want to achieve. Do we want this or do we want? > a. A total and tangible list of the security&privacy features > applicable for WoT that needs to be covered by W3C standards (existing and > new), using MUST, SHOULD and MAY vocabulary? > b. A tangible list of the security&privacy features applicable for > WoT that needs to be standardized by W3C in addition to what exists today > (or what is in progress being standardized), i.e. a gap list, using MUST, > SHOULD and MAY vocabulary? > WDYT? > > BR > Claes > > > > *Claes Nilsson* > Master Engineer - Web Research > Research&Incubation > > *Sony Mobile Communications* > Tel: +46 70 55 66 878 > claes1.nilsson@sonymobile.com <Firstname.Lastname@sonymobile.com> > > sonymobile.com > > > *From:* Pfaff, Oliver [mailto:oliver.pfaff@siemens.com > <oliver.pfaff@siemens.com>] > *Sent:* den 5 augusti 2015 13:48 > *To:* public-wot-ig@w3.org > *Subject:* [IG-SP] Review of Security&Privacy Requirements Catalogue > > Dear colleagues, > until now the Security&Privacy Requirements Catalogue > <https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Security%26Privacy_Requirements_Catalogue> > used to be a bit of a laundry list. That changed and now there is a > first draft version for review. > > Formally the Wiki page is public (as well as this mail) and we’d accept > comments from anybody in WoT IG. However I would like to ask for review and > feedback from [IG-SP] before sending heads-up notices to the TFs. > > When reviewing, please check for: > · *Completeness*: does the catalogue cover all requirements that > we want to highlight (caveat: it should not become too lengthy, special > interest items may have to be dropped to avoid the ‘TL;NR’ syndrome)? > · *Correctness*: are the contents of the catalogue sufficiently > sound (caveat: it should not become academic, becoming too nitty-gritty > should be avoided)? > · *Comprehension*: do the contents compile when reading through > the catalogue with common sense, are the contents intuitively accessible? > · *Wording*: which improvements are needed to pass the ‘native > speaker check’? > > I suggest a review/feedback period (within SP) until Aug, 12. Please > provide suggestion and addition/change requests on the public mailing list > or in a personal exchange (suggestions and addition/change requests that > arrive thereafter will also be accommodated – this is not meant as a final > call) > > Please note that I will do a round of double-checking against the IIC > reference architecture during this review/feedback period (=> there might > be some [hopefully minor] updates) > > Please also note that there will be some derivative work that will reflect > the structure of the security&privacy requirements catalogue => adding > (new) catalogue items later on will be easy, tweaking the structure will be > tedious. So let’s put a priority on establishing a structure that has a > good chance of staying stable > > Kind regards, > Oliver > > > -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, TV, MMI, Voice and Geo Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image003.png
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 17:16:42 UTC