Re: Updated charters, with tentative time line

On 2006-08-07 17:41:12 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> I'm a bit worried about: 
> "a minimal set of security context information "

> It seems to imply a single small set of items will be
> required of any user agent. I don't think it will work out
> that way, though I do think the alternatives will collapse
> to a small conceptual set, and that their presence or lack
> will be important to users. Things like user/web agent 
> history, and strength and meaningfulness of
> identification/authentication. 

Would you have a suggestion for wording that might address your
concern?

> A first public working draft implies to me that that version
> at least will target well known web agents (browsers as
> opposed to rich client) and core protocols (HTTPS as opposed
> to Web Services). Are these in fact very aggressive
> deadlines for a predominantly tactical WG? 

A first public working draft may quite well have large holes
that are filled up as work goes on. The three-month heartbeat
really comes from the Process. The variable that can be tuned
more easily in a charter is the number of working drafts before
Last Call.

[[

    It is important that a Working Group keep the Membership
    and public informed of its activity and progress.  To this
    end, each Working Group SHOULD publish in the W3C technical
    reports index a new draft of each active technical report
    at least once every three months.

]]  -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C   <tlr@w3.org>







>           Mez
> 
> 
> 
> public-usable-authentication-request@w3.org wrote on 08/07/2006 12:39:11 
> PM:
> 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I've taken another stab at the scope and deliverable sections
> > of the charter drafts, and added tentative time lines to these.
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/wsc-charter
> >   http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/htmlauth-charter
> > 
> > For the security context information baseline group, I've tried
> > to introduce a clearer partition between the question what to
> > display (and how to do it nicely), and techniques to make that
> > kind of display more robust against spoofing.  (Thanks to Jeff
> > Nelson (Google) for his suggestions.)
> > 
> > The form annotations project has seen some general clean-up.
> > 
> > The time line (identical for both groups at this point) is
> > essentially the usual 3-month heartbeat requirement for public
> > working drafts, with two public WDs before last call.  A call
> > for participation is assumed to go out in October, and an
> > initial face-to-face meeting (for both groups; hopefully, we
> > can find a way to co-locate these) is assumed for the week of
> > 13 November.
> > 
> > 
> >    Caveat emptor: Please note that, at this 
> >    point, these dates are working hypotheses!
> > 
> > 
> > Comments would, as always, be useful,
> > -- 
> > Thomas Roessler, W3C   <tlr@w3.org>
> >

Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 10:25:23 UTC