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

I agree that it is, and throw myself upon the mercy of the workgroup  
for the needless repetition!  Thanks Mez!

Happy new year,

J

On 7-Jan-08, at 11:39 AM, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
johnath@mozilla.com