Re: summary of informal PING working meeting last Friday...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 3/11/14, 3:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> 
> I am always uncertain whether you guys talk about #1 or #2 when
> you refer to RFC 6973. You seem to conflate the two aspects.

This is a good point. I'll need to review the w3c document you've been
working on, but I'd hope PING can think about both document-centric
guidelines as well as how privacy considerations fit in the larger w3c
standardization process.

best, Joe

- -- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
joe@cdt.org
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=95lC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 18:25:05 UTC