- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:45:44 -0400
- To: tyler.close@hp.com
- Cc: "Web Security Context WG" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF648D21EF.CBB93AA7-ON852572BA.0051D52F-852572BB.006C9029@LocalDomain>
The only issue I have is that it will be a "point in time" statement. But the current timeline doesn't really say when wsc-usecases will be done. If we assume that wsc-usecases includes all information sources we consider, it is not "done" until November 2007. That would mean moving "finalize wsc-usecases" from May to November. Anyone see any issues with that? Mez Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office (t/l 333-6389) Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 04/10/2007 02:41 PM To "Web Security Context WG" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> cc Subject RE: ISSUE-28: \"available security information\" I think having an exhaustive list of all the information sources we can use when creating recommendations is valuable to ensure we're not neglecting a valuable source of information. In drafting the intro to this section, I purposely used the word "exhaustive" so as to draw a big fat target on my back. If there's something important that's not covered by this list we want to know about it and add it to the list if it is in-scope. I think it is a mistake to weasel word around "exhaustive" as that might discourage people from pointing out the discrepancies that we really want them to point out. Thomas' ISSUE-28 picks at the word "exhaustive" without pointing out even a single omission. I guess we need a word even more provocative than "exhaustive", in order to get the feedback we need. ;) Tyler From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:52 PM To: Timothy Hahn Cc: Web Security Context WG Subject: Re: ISSUE-28: \"available security information\" Echoing comments I've made on the calls, I am also a fan of this section. Not only does it document the context in which recommendations were generated (Mez's point) but it is also a reasonably useful list to which to refer; at least for me. I'm fine with changing the language though, so that we don't claim to be something we're not. Cheers, J --- Johnathan Nightingale Human Shield johnath@mozilla.com On 9-Apr-07, at 8:22 AM, Timothy Hahn wrote: +1 on keeping the section. I think we could come up with a better adjective than "exhaustive". Perhaps "well known" or "known" would be sufficiently precise for now. Regards, Tim Hahn IBM Distinguished Engineer Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS phone: 919.224.1565 tie-line: 8/687.1565 fax: 919.224.2530 "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 04/09/07 10:26 AM To Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> cc Subject Re: ISSUE-28: \"available security information\" > However, in its current state, I'm inclined to consider this section neither > "exhaustive" (as the text claims it is), nor particularly useful. I disagree on the utility. It's good to see an overview of the available security information that we've identified. Readers don't need to ask "have you thought about using x?", since they can just check the list. And it has useful references as well. I would argue against removing it, even in its current form. Mez
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 19:45:48 UTC