- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:39:47 -0500
- To: Web Security Context Working Group WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 16:40:00 UTC
Johnathan, the current resolution on ISSUE-119 is to remove no interaction certs, per the action associated with it: http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/119 If you agree that this is the same issue, we should close this one as a duplicate. If it's not, please say how it is not. Thanks. Mez From: Web Security Context Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org Date: 01/07/2008 09:40 AM Subject: ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology? ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology? http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/ Raised by: Johnathan Nightingale On product: Review comment: We are supplying normative language for no-interaction certs which, aiui, are still purely conceptual. That feels like defining new protocols to me, particularly since the definition cites a non-existent reference at the moment. If this is out there in the world and deployed, then I think our language is fine, but I don't think we want to be in the business of defining x509 extensions.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 16:40:00 UTC