Re: [IG-SP] Review of Security&Privacy Requirements Catalogue

Also I'm suggesting a joint session on location-based services
with the Automotive WG/BG to the Geolocation WG :)

Please see:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2015Aug/0009.html

Kazuyuki


On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good Kaz.  This could be part of the WG agenda for Monday or
>> Tuesday at TPAC.  Would that make sense?
>>
>
> Sure :)
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Paul J. Boyes
>> --------------------------------
>> Mobile:   206-276-9675
>> Skype:  pauljboyes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>> <image003.png>
>>>
>>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, TV, MMI, Voice and Geo
> Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
>
>


-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, TV, MMI, Voice and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504