Re: comments about note

We're in violent agreement, it seems.
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>






On 2007-04-12 08:12:54 -0400, Doyle, Bill wrote:
> From: "Doyle, Bill" <wdoyle@mitre.org>
> To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
> Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:12:54 -0400
> Subject: RE: comments about note
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> 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 14:44:36 UTC