Agreed, from what I've seen so far. It would be good for us to clearly demarcate what's in scope for each group here. On 6/9/10 9:25 AM, Brandon Sterne wrote: > I think W3C is the right venue for CSP given that CSP is primarily > geared towards content restrictions and HASMAT will be primarily focused > on transport-level restrictions (think Origin header, STS, etc.). I > think there is a neat separation between these two areas which maps well > to the areas of focus of IETF and W3C. > > -Brandon > > > On 06/03/2010 11:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Would this be a reasonable/acceptable place for CSP? >> >> -Art Barstow >> >> P.S. "hasmat" - that's a good one! >>>> From: Peter Saint-Andre<stpeter@stpeter.im> >>>> Date: 3 June 2010 20:14:13 GMT+02:00 >>>> To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org"<apps-discuss@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: Re: HTTP Application Security (HAS) BoF >>>> >>>> We now have a dedicated list for this BoF: >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hasmat >>>> >>>> Please discuss further on that list. I'll be blasting various lists and >>>> individuals regarding the BoF. >>>> >>>> On 6/2/10 8:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've received a proposal to hold a birds of a feather (BoF) session at >>>>> IETF 78 in Maastricht on the topic of HTTP Application Security. A >>>>> draft charter and agenda can be found below. Please discuss on the >>>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org list: >
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 15:45:31 UTC