Re: ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology?

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.