W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

RE: comments about note

From: Doyle, Bill <wdoyle@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:12:54 -0400
Message-ID: <518C60F36D5DBC489E91563736BA4B5801691936@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
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


-----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:44 UTC