- 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