- From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@fb.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:31:43 +0000
- To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@fb.com>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
This related WG at the IETF has also come to my attention: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ace/ ACE = Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments On 11/10/14, 10:48 AM, "Brad Hill" <hillbrad@fb.com> wrote: >Agreed 100%. Given the size of the list we started with, the group felt >it was important to scope our charter closely to what we have the >resources to achieve. We (like many standards groups) have an unfortunate >habit of missing our schedules already, and I would say this got a "no" >for reasons mostly of triage. > >That said, I think if there are individuals who will publicly commit to >showing up and doing the work as editors, testers and liaisons with other >groups, I don't think there is a fundamental objection to tackling some of >the web-specific interactions we discussed earlier on list. > >-Brad > >On 11/10/14, 9:57 AM, "Chris Palmer" <palmer@google.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Rechartering Thread 8: Secure introduction of Internet-Connected Things >>> >>> At TPAC and in our survey there was a strong expression of sentiment >>> that the WG should NOT consider this for its charter due to scope and >>> appropriateness for the community participating here, but that rather >>> the WG or individuals should work to develop requirements first with >>> the IoT Community Group being spun up at the W3C or other industry >>> bodies. >> >>This is an amazingly twisty problem, with lots of pointy sticks and >>unexploded cows everywhere. Is the IoT Community Group going to be the >>right place? Do they have security and secure usability expertise? >> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 21:32:17 UTC