W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Meeting record: 2008-03-19

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:19:09 +0100
To: WSC WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080328141909.GA10374@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>

Minutes from our meeting on 2008-03-19 were approved and are
available online here:

   http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html

A text version is included below the .signature.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>




   [1]W3C

               Web Security Context Working Group Teleconference

19 Mar 2008

   [2]Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Anil Saldhana, Yngve Pettersen, Thomas Roessler, Tim Hahn, Ian
          Fette, Hal Lockhart, William Eburn, Stephen Farrell, Bill Doyle,
          Phillip Hallam-Baker, Tyler Close, Dan Schutzer, Rachna Dhamija

   Regrets
          Mary Ellen Zurko, Jan Vidar Krey, Johnathan Nightingale

   Chair
          Thomas Roessler

   Scribe
          Ian Fette

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Administrivia
         2. [6]Agenda Bashing
         3. [7]face to face
         4. [8]minutes from last meeting
         5. [9]Action items
         6. [10]Review restructuring of section 7 Robustness (was: section
            8)
         7. [11]Petnames discussion
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________

Administrivia

   tlr: lots of people not showing up
   ... FF3B5 near code freeze? Losing yngve early today b/c he's traveling
   ... brief reminder about f2f, minutes to approve, and then want to go
   briefly through action items, and then want to talk about shuffling
   around in section 7, review petname proposal tyler circulated, and then
   some floating text in 7.1.4 and 8.1

Agenda Bashing

   tlr: anyone want to change?
   ... good

face to face

   tlr: it's coming. be there.
   ... and register

   <tlr> [13]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39814/wscf2fosl/

   ifette: wondering if anyone has been able to reserve the hotel?

   tlr: not tried

   <tlr> ACTION: yngve to check reservation code for f2f hotel [recorded
   in [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-403 - Check reservation code for f2f hotel
   [on Yngve Pettersen - due 2008-03-26].

   yngve: checking into it, lots of people are on vacation

   tlr: made an action
   ... any other questions?
   ... or anyone else know if they are going / not going?

   tim: calling in

   billd: calling in probably

   sschutzer: on vacation

   <rachna> I'm calling in.

   <tlr> s/steven/schutzer/

   tlr: pelase submit your answers to the online form

minutes from last meeting

   <tlr> Draft: [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-wsc-minutes.html

   tlr: that was 5.3.2008, no comments on mailing list, any changes?
   ... any objections?

   RESOLUTION: minutes approved

Action items

   <tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-401

   <trackbot-ng> ACTION-401 Document/Screencap Larry as a lo-fi prototype
   candidate for the identity signal closed

   tlr: think ACTION-401 is done
   ... things relevant to june last call, still have one pending to clean
   up error message text in spec, think that's the only blocking
   ... some stuff to be merged, incl. petname
   ... anil is to drop in some acknowledgements
   ... some confusion around an action relating to ISSUE-124

   ISSUE-124?

   <trackbot-ng> ISSUE-124 -- Safe Form Bar: reliable text -- OPEN

   <trackbot-ng> [16]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/124

   tlr: any idea what this is about?

   anil: Need to prepare a draft, get tyler's feedback

   tlr: On list, you were asking for input, tyler was also confused
   ... do you think you have required input?

   Anil: No, will have next week

   tlr: chats with Anil

   <tlr>
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wsc-wg/2008Jan/0011.html

   tyler: Given that this is about material in an appendix, does it make
   sense to spend cycles on it?

   tlr: not urgent, but saw communication issues
   ... moving on to section 7 stuff

Review restructuring of section 7 Robustness (was: section 8)

   tlr: has moved material not making it to LC into an appendix, has
   renumbered as a result
   ... tried to bring Robustness into a shape that looks like what we
   discussed at f2f
   ... on a high level, chrome and UI best practices in 7.1, user
   attention, and APIs
   ... summarizs new section 7. Read it.

   <stephenF>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#Robustness

   Stephen: Does 7.1 imply mobile device must use shared secret?

   tlr: Probably needs further elaboration, intent is that where technique
   makes sense, use it

   <tlr> ACTION: stephenF to propose wording for 7.1 (chrome and UI
   practices) to weaken requirement to stuff that makes sense in a given
   context [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-404 - Propose wording for 7.1 (chrome and
   UI practices) to weaken requirement to stuff that makes sense in a
   given context [on Stephen Farrell - due 2008-03-26].

   <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to say that I dont really understand what
   interactions 7.1 is talking about

   ifette: what interactions fall under 7.1?

   tlr: Two angles, on one hand these are things that you may do...

   ifette: hold on

   tlr: specific interactions... two hooks at this point that go into 7.1
   ... one is very initial text in 7.1, when you signal security context
   info outside of an interaction specifically invoked to do so,
   ... unsolicited security information, at least one must be used
   ... rest are additional
   ... second hook is from 6.4
   ... serge's language on error interactions
   ... 6.4.1 is new,

   <stephenF> also just noticed that 7.1 says you MUST do 7.1.1 or 7.1.2
   but 7.1.1 only has single MAY => doing nothing is ok?

   ifette: questions about what it means to cross the chrome content
   boundary

   <tlr> Web user agents SHOULD use difficult-to-spoof UI elements that
   cross the chrome-content border where appropriate.

   tlr: original text was phrased as follows

   <tlr> ACTION: tlr to get johnath to clarify applicability and
   description of crossing chrome-content border, or find other volunteer
   [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-405 - Get johnath to clarify applicability
   and description of crossing chrome-content border, or find other
   volunteer [on Thomas Roessler - due 2008-03-26].

   tlr: trying to figure out how to word what Stephen pointed out

   Stephen: suggestst just dropping the MUST, say that it's best practice,
   take it

   tlr: any other thoughts?
   ... worries about blurring conformance model

   <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to bash on conformance model

   ifette: conformance model already a nightmare

   <tlr> ifette: +1 to "best practices", maybe "SHOULD make use of these"

   <tlr> ... I've kind of given up on the conformance model, fine with
   best practice ...

   <tlr> rachna: What should be best practice, waht shouldn't?

   <tlr> ifette: both

   <tlr> rachna: whole document?

   <tlr> ifette: oh

   <stephenF> So 1st sentence of 7.1 might be "Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2
   document best practices for display of security information. Web user
   agents SHOULD adopt these where they make sense (e.g. if display of
   chrome is possible)"

   ifette: this would be a great f2f topic
   ... our lack of conformance model

   <Zakim> rachna, you wanted to ask what is difference between 7.1.4 and
   8.1

   rachna: what is difference between 7.1.4 and 8.1?

   tlr: which 8.1?

   rachna: current

   tlr: 7.1.4 is old 8.1, current 8.1 is old 9.1 and is a requirement for
   conent
   ... 7.1.4 is requirement on UAs
   ... 7.1.4 is about favicons in trusted places, 8.1 is about padlocks in
   form control

   <Zakim> stephenF, you wanted to ask about 7.1.2 being a bit vague on
   whether the site or UA does the trick

   Stephen: 7.1.2, seems to be a bit vague as to whether UAs or websites
   are doing this
   ... is that the right thing? or ask if UA does it make it clear that
   it's the UA doing it
   ... confusing
   ... want mez' input

   <tlr> [21]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/new

   tlr: anything else about restructuring / changed content?
   ... heads up, if something about this part you expect to change as a
   result of f2f and hasn't changed yet, tlr forgot and give him a heads
   up

   <tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-383

   <tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-384

   <trackbot-ng> ACTION-384 Propose lang about currently interacted
   primary chrome always visible on screen [do jointly with ACTION-383,
   restructure 8.2-8.4] closed

   <tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-383

   <tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-383

   <trackbot-ng> ACTION-383 Change editor's draft as outlined above
   [restructure 8.2-8.3] closed

   tlr: anything else on Section 7?

Petnames discussion

   ifette: clarify where this text is going. In LC document or some
   spinoff?

   tlr: his recollection is that something like what tyler suggested could
   be sufficiently low hanging as to make it into LC, no decision yet

   tyler: intent of process is to see whether usable for last call, not
   examining for future document

   tlr: tyler, introduce?

   <tlr>
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Mar/0097.html

   tyler: just sent another email...
   ... one from last week on updated implementation proposal for petname
   on its own separate from webform editor was taking user task of
   recognizing hostnames and putting a user interface on that
   ... doing it this way addresses PHB and Stephen and Hal's concerns
   ... about new ways about using info in certificate
   ... attempting to implement using only existing HTTPS spec algorithms
   as applied to x509
   ... only extracting host names and matching there
   ... no new matching algorithms
   ... if you visit a "Strongly TLS protected" website, user can assign
   petname
   ... create binding in browser, between petname and host identifiers
   ... from then on, when you get a strongly tls protected site with cert
   that has bound hostname, display that petname
   ... includes pinned SSCs
   ... user can edit/delete petname
   ... browser should compare petnames, make sure it's not "similar"
   ... no duplication

   <Zakim> stephenF, you wanted to ask if wildcards in DNS names in certs
   must all be covered by the same petname (don't mind just wondering)

   stephen: likes changes, questions about wildcards

   tyler: using existing mechanisms for matching. If wildcard on
   *.f00.com, it is for *.f00.com
   ... same petname

   ifette: what if there's a *.foo.com and also a xyz.foo.com cert
   (someone has both)

   tyler: if you try to assign same petname there, browser would warn user
   that there's no known relationship between the two cert chains

   <stephenF> thing I wanted to think about is whether NameConstraints
   ought influence petname associations; thing is that that probably won't
   be visible to layer about SSL

   tyler: underlying quandary present in underlying protocol
   ... foo.com would be presenting an incoherent set of certs to the user
   ... no matter how the user views them, it's incoherent

   ifette: is this may/should/must

   tyler: for now, attempting to define petname presentation
   ... and this is how it should work
   ... then hash out whether the browser MAY/SHOULD/MUST implement this

   tlr: one way this could fit in is to say that UAs that allow people to
   assign names SHOULD display in identity signal...
   ... xyzblah
   ... this has a wierd interaction with bookmarks
   ... good thing to do in identity signal, and if you take user assigned
   names into identity signals this is how you do it

   ifette: are you saying bookmark is petname iff displayed in identity
   signal?

   tlr: no. typical bookmark interaction is not a useful source of info
   for identity signal
   ... that is side effect here

   <stephenF> tlr: why not?

   tlr: if names are part of identity signal, this is how they should
   describe

   ifette: so there's no onus for a browser to implement this?

   <stephenF> tlr: type this rather than say it

   <tlr> 1. Browsers SHOULD use petnames.

   ifette votes against this strawman proposal

   and has real concerns

   <tlr> 2. If browsers do anything with user-assigned names in the
   identity signal, then MUST follow petname logic.

   <tlr> ?

   phb: bunch of things here
   ... interaction with bookmarks should be discussed further
   ... might want to have hybrid of bookmarks + petnames
   ... reduce interaction cost

   ifette: what if I bookmark a page deep in
   ... e.g. xyz.com/foo/bar/d.html and I call that "privacy policy"?

   phb: the more we get into the face of the user and interrupt workflow,
   more we can expect them to take notice and expect them to be more
   secure
   ... as long as they dont turn off feature
   ... two issues, asking for too much from browsers/users we dont get
   what we need. tension between making systems more secure and acceptable
   ... talks more
   ... talks about other ideas like in vista and leopard
   ... blacking screen, other ideas

   tlr: one point I want to pick up on, that is bookmark interactions
   ... tyler, don't have your language present, anything about bookmarks?
   ... or how initial petname definiton achieved?

   tyler: when you visit strongly tls protected page, user can assign a
   petname

   tlr: one thought, in prototype or spec language, is to say "if people
   are on a site that is strongly tls and they bookmark a page on that
   site, there should be an offer as part of that interaction to assign
   petname to entire site"
   ... dont know if that fits

   tyler: moving in that direction takes us further in towards form filler
   ... can key off of form editor or bookmark

   ifette: focus in FF3 is making bookmarks less cognatively burdened

   tlr: dont know
   ... a thought

   <Zakim> stephenF, you wanted to ask what if wildnames get defined later
   (how'd I differentiate a wildname from a petname?)

   Stephen: Tending towards having as MAY
   ... could be convinced
   ... should have more experience with
   ... more discussion about why petnames/bookmarks are same different or
   related, but can do later
   ... question: if you are doing petnames, text will define how you do
   it, that makes sense
   ... what if, sometime later, someone defines XYZName instead of
   PetName?
   ... how will I understand difference?

   tyler: unsure right now

   tlr: part of my strawman is that "if there are user entered strings or
   names as part of identity signal, they must follow the petname scheme"

   stephen: difficulty understanding UX eventually, string popus up, my
   bank etc
   ... occur in other contexts

   <PHB> I am tending towards MAY as well

   stephen: how to make sure that when user interprets sth as a petname,
   it is a petname?

   tyler: thomas had claimed entire space of user assigned names to
   authenticated entities. comfortable?

   stephen: user might call it mybank.com
   ... what if some other reputation service uses a similar name?
   ... choices can collide

   <stephenF> +1 to ifette's concern about this being a SHOULD (I do like
   it as a MAY implement)

   ifette: cocerns about requring new things that haven't been widely
   tested

   tyler: one of the reasons this WG was formed is that browser vendors
   didn't want to change UI not in unison
   ... that's part of why this WG was formed

   <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to say the WG has failed that already

   <tlr> ifette: there was a point where browser vendors were hesitant to
   act out of unison

   <tlr> ... that seems to change now, FF and IE are out of unison right
   now ...

   <tlr> ... we don't have enough from them here ...

   ifette: we're deluding ourselves if we think this working group
   represents browser vendors coming together to change security user
   interfaces in unity

   tlr: what I hear is that this sounds like something that is
   good-practice-ish as a positive, and a good interaction to drop in the
   spec in some way

   <stephenF> if petnames do get used, then they could become a BCP, but
   not yet

   tlr: what I would like to get a sense for is whether this is low
   hanging enough to get into last call for june

   tyler: making it into LC means it gets out for feedback

   tlr: sense is prioritizing for feedback

   ifette: Think this is too far out. Could live with it as a may, but is
   too far out

   tyler: wrote resposne to rachna, believe it's lower user burden

   tlr: have short time left, won't tacke user burden today
   ... would ask to send mail in response to tyler's message, pinpoint
   where undue burden is created

   <tlr> ACTION: ifette to point out user burden concerns w/ petnames in
   detail [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-406 - Point out user burden concerns w/
   petnames in detail [on Ian Fette - due 2008-03-26].

   Stephen: Too much to make it a should, can make it a may, don't share
   ian's concerns re optional things causing us to lose adoptiveness

   <tlr> ACTION: tyler to refine petname proposal in light of 2008-03-19
   call's discussion [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action05]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-407 - Refine petname proposal in light of
   2008-03-19 call's discussion [on Tyler Close - due 2008-03-26].

   <stephenF> ifette, so what? specs get revised in the light of
   experience

   <stephenF> +1 to tlr not wanting broad implementation experience a gate
   before LC

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ifette to point out user burden concerns w/ petnames in
   detail [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: stephenF to propose wording for 7.1 (chrome and UI
   practices) to weaken requirement to stuff that makes sense in a given
   context [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: thomas to merge ACTION-399 result and Mez's framework for
   TLS indicator.
   [27]http://www.w3.org/mid/OF2C1C81FA.89D109DC-ON852573F7.004AB8EA-85257
   3F7.00507540@LocalDomain
   [28]http://www.w3.org/mid/bbeaa26f0803031142h2a576de4h7e5e98dc59228fe5@
   mail.gmail.com [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: tlr to get johnath to clarify applicability and
   description of crossing chrome-content border, or find other volunteer
   [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: tyler to refine petname proposal in light of 2008-03-19
   call's discussion [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: yngve to check reservation code for f2f hotel [recorded
   in [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.128
    ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/03/26 12:57:25 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Mar/0099.html
   3. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  13. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39814/wscf2fosl/
  14. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action01
  15. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-wsc-minutes.html
  16. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/124
  17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wsc-wg/2008Jan/0011.html
  18. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#Robustness
  19. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action02
  20. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action03
  21. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/new
  22. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Mar/0097.html
  23. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action04
  24. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action05
  25. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action04
  26. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action02
  27. http://www.w3.org/mid/OF2C1C81FA.89D109DC-ON852573F7.004AB8EA-852573F7.00507540@LocalDomain
  28. http://www.w3.org/mid/bbeaa26f0803031142h2a576de4h7e5e98dc59228fe5@mail.gmail.com
  29. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action06
  30. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action03
  31. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action05
  32. http://www.w3.org/2008/03/19-wsc-minutes.html#action01
  33. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  34. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 14:19:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:54 UTC