Re: Proposals received

Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, 2013-01-03 20:55 -0800:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> > == Execution and Security Model ==
> > * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/SecurityModel/RequirementsForSecurityModel.html
> > * http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html
> > Our charter asks that we publish a FPWD of the Execution and Security
> > Model this quarter.  Mounir's proposal looks like a reasonable
> > starting point for a FPWD, but there is a question in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jan/0000.html
> > as to how we should coordinate with the WebApps working group.
> 
> I think the chairs of the WebApps WG are actually limited in their
> options by how willing the participants of the WebApps WG is to
> implement a specification. So to a large extent you are actually
> sitting on two chairs there since Google is likely the other
> participant needed to get the group to accept the work.
> 
> I don't mind if we start the discussions in the SysApps WG first and
> bring it to the WebApps WG once it's a bit more mature and complete.

I suggest it might be better to try to get agreement from everybody for the
Execution Model and Security Model specification(s) (in whatever form) to
remain solely within the SysApps WG, without any expectation that they ever
be brought over to WebApps -- and that the contents of the Web Application
Manifest Format and Management APIs be merged into whatever specification(s)
the SysApps WG produces for the Execution and Security bits.

Now that we have the SysApps WG, it's not clear to me at least what value
there would be in continuing anything related to the Web Application
Manifest Format and Management APIs work in the WebApps WG.

The relevant language that's in the current WebApps WG charter was added
before the SysApps WG was conceived, and it's specifically restricted to a
spec for defining just a "packaging format and configuration format...
that allows the use of JSON to describe Web Applications".

The current "Security Requirements for System Applications" and "Runtime
and Security Model for Web Applications" drafts clearly go beyond simply
defining a JSON packaging format. The WebApps WG, to publish anything like
them, would need to be rechartered -- with charter language specifically
putting them in scope. But that language is already in the SysApps charter
-- in the parts that outline the Execution model and Security model. And
those parts are fundamental to the rest of the SysApps deliverables.

So anyway I don't think anything would be gained by planning on moving any
of that work over to the WebApps WG at some later point.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 07:24:13 UTC