- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:31:23 +0200
- To: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Mez, I'd appreciate if we could look at the other actions that I moved out of the way last Friday; see my pending review actions here: http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/users/36886 I'd in particular like to know whether people are fine with my proposed resolution for ACTION-481: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0018.html I still owe the conformance text (ACTION-446), but hope to be done with that in time for the call tomorrow. Also, what's our plan for ACTION-453? I see a proposal and some discussion, so maybe it's worth spending some call time on it. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0023.html Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 2008-06-10 09:22:11 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote: > From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com> > To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:22:11 -0400 > Subject: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-06-11 > List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org> > X-Spam-Level: > Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of > public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org designates 128.30.52.56 as permitted sender) > smtp.mail=public-wsc-wg-request@listhub.w3.org > Archived-At: > <http://www.w3.org/mid/OF6A342098.BCB0A091-ON85257460.0041D8CC-85257464.004970D9@LocalDomain > > > X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=1.1.6 > > Web Security Context (WSC) Call Agenda > > Calling information: > Wednesday, 11 June 2008 > 11:00 am - 12:30 pm Eastern time > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/#meetings > http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20080611 > > > Agenda > > 1) Pick a scribe > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/cheatsheet#Scribing > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/scribes > > 2) Approve minutes from meetings > Not available at the time of writing > > 3) Weekly completed action items > (Usually checkpointed Friday am, US East Coast time) > [pending review] ACTION-434: Anil Saldhana to Add robustness-obscuring > xrefs to identity signal and TLS signal - due 2008-05-31 > [pending review] ACTION-453: Yngve Pettersen to Provide initial draft of > security considerations for EV mixed with DV case - due 2008-05-30 > > 4) Open Action Items > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Jun/0007.html > > 5) Action items closed due to inactivity > None. > > 6) Agenda bashing > > 7) Conforming Implementations > Needed for CR exit. > We'll need at least two conforming implementations to test against. We're > currently targeting (at least) Opera and Firefox. > Discuss Firefox this week. Johnthan is this discussion; he is welcome to > others. > What version of Firefox will we test? > What can we expect in terms of MUSTs, SHOULDs, etc. > Will we have gaps? > We'll walk through the spec, logging which RFC 2119 statements Firefox > expects to cover, and which not. > > 8) Next meeting - 18 June 2008 > > We need to wrap up actions and issues so we can go to last call. > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/products/4 > All issues besides 188 and 199 will be closed when their associated > actions are closed. > We'll do the final cleanup on 188 and 199 at that time. > > Finish up going over Opera 9.50 as a conforming implementation to test > against. > Yngve, Jan Vidar, and Claudio will be required. Perhaps next week? > > What else beyond June? > What, if anything, other than taking wsc-xit through LC to CR entry to CR > exit (to recommendation) would we like to do after June? What would we be > capable of doing? What should we, or someone like us, do? > Some ideas: > o Authoring best practices for (usably) secured sites. Some of the things > we've wanted to recommend haven't been obviously in the scope of enabling > security context information for user trust decisions. Should we ask for a > charter clarification/change or new WG to do this? > o Dealing with mixed content (there's some feeling that there might be > more to do here). > o Providing guidance or expertise to other standards efforts that touch on > usable security. Can we provide guidance on how to deal with user > expectations and implications when protocol security is > designed/standardized? To do? Not to do? > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 13:32:01 UTC