- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:09:50 +0200
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Can you make sure that it doesn't collide with the HTTP BOF? Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 2007-06-20 20:56:00 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> > To: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> > Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:56:00 +0100 > Subject: IETF BoF on trust anchor managment > List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org> > X-Spam-Level: > X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/46798650.2000607@cs.tcd.ie > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5 > > > > Hi all, > > I've gotten roped in to help run a BoF at the next > IETF (end July) which is on the topic of trust > anchor managment. Basically, I guess some enterprise > type folks want to be able to manage the roots on > their client machines, but maybe there'll be more > to it as we go on (or maybe not). > > There's a reasonable 1st cut at a problem statement at > [1] and a mailing list for chatting [2]. > > I think that this should be of interest to some here, > in which case, I'd encourage you to get involved, or > at least say what you think on that list. (Paul Hoffman > already made the point there that trust anchor management > might reduce the number of bad cert errors sufficiently > that each could be treated seriously instead of being > yet another instance of training the user to click on > "ok" regardless;-) > > So far, it seems to me that it'd be an improvement > here to have browser vendors and financials say what > they think, if they're interested enough. If they're > not, then that of course may tell its own story. > > Cheers, > S. > > [1] > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wallace-ta-mgmt-problem-statement-00.txt > [2] http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-trust-anchor/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 21:10:05 UTC