- From: Doyle, Bill <wdoyle@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:12:54 -0400
- To: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
- Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
It was my goal to include existing security context available within WG scope and charter. I Felt that it was not the goal to document all security information or all security capabilities available or in use on a networked enabled platform. B -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 6:48 AM To: Close, Tyler J. Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: comments about note On 2007-04-10 23:37:58 -0000, Close, Tyler J. wrote: > Bill's first comment was about constraining the scope of the > "Document the status quo" goal. I've edited the goal accordingly. > See: > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/#status-quo The new text seems to suggest we're not considering it a goal to document *existing* practices to protect security context information against spoofing attacks. If that's intended, I disagree. (One could argue, though, that this is covered by the "reliable presentation" goal, among others.) -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 12:13:00 UTC