- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:25:51 +0000
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>
On Nov 21, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2011-11-20, at 16:47 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote: > >> The reason why we try to have explicit scoping in the charter is because >> that: >> >> 1) IP for W3C RFF is scoped to the charter originally. > > It's a little more complicated: commitments are made to the recommendations that eventually result from the process. As those documents typically don't exist initially, companies typically evaluate the scope in the charter as a good proxy. Therefore, having a reasonably narrow charter early on tends to be a good idea. > >> 2) To prevent the group from going down long, winding paths - so the chairs >> can rely on the charter to say "out of scope". > > +1 > >>> In identifying use-cases, the group shall consider the primary objective >>> of meeting the schedule outlined below and may therefore exclude use-cases >>> requiring capabilities expected to cause excessive schedule risk. As >>> guidance it is expected that access control beyond the same-origin policy, >>> management and validation of certificates and device-specific access to >>> keying material." > > The last sentence here seems incomplete. "… is out of scope"? Yes, that's what I meant. ...Mark > > > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 21:26:30 UTC