Re: Agenda: WSC WG distributed meeting, Wednesday, 2008-05-28

Regrets but I will not be able to attend.

Joe


On 5/22/08 3:24 PM, "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
wrote:

> 
> [I'm taking a very long weekend, and won't be back at work until the day of
> our next meeting. But I will have email connectivity. See you soon. Mez]
> 
>         Web Security Context (WSC) Call Agenda
> 
> Calling information:
> Wednesday, 28 May 2008
> 11:00 am - 12:30 pm Eastern time
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/#meetings
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/#meetings>
> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20080528
> <http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20071031>
> 
> 
> Agenda
> 
> 1) Pick a scribe 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/cheatsheet#Scribing
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/cheatsheet#Scribing>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/scribes <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/scribes>
> 
> 2) Approve minutes from meetings
> 
> 3) Weekly completed action items
> (Usually checkpointed Friday am, US East Coast time)
> [pending review] ACTION-430: Luis Barriga to Write up grammar/spelling edits
> for anil - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-437: Anil Saldhana to Update 7.4.4 to use SHOULD
> instead of [MAY|SHOULD] - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-440: Anil Saldhana to Remove Conformance Labels
> section 3.2 - due 2008-05-20
> [pending review] ACTION-454: Anil Saldhana to Add section 9.2 based on
> issue-205 text - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-459: Anil Saldhana to Do issue-207 - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-464: Anil Saldhana to Merge acknowledgments (sections
> 10 and 2) to 2 - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-468: Anil Saldhana to Make spelling changes in
> ISSUE-209 - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-469: Anil Saldhana to Cut off action433 result before
> the "e.g. by switching to ....." - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-472: Anil Saldhana to Drop "desktop" in 4.2.1 3rd and
> 5th paragraphs - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-473: Anil Saldhana to Add "device manufactures" to
> list in 5.1.1, 2nd paragraphs - due 2008-05-21
> [pending review] ACTION-474: Anil Saldhana to Drop word "desktop" in 7.2 1st
> paragraph - due 2008-05-21
> 
> 4) Open Action Items
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/open
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/open>
> 
> 5) Action items closed due to inactivity
> None. There's a bunch with overdue deadlines. Please, please,  please manage
> the deadlines on your action items. Please.
> 
> 6) Agenda bashing
> 
> 7) Test development
> Thomas to lead
> Test plans, sites to test against, test execution, etc.
> Some amount of test planning is needed for CR entry.
> Doing the testing is needed for CR exit.
> 
> 8) Next meeting - 04 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
> <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.
> 
> Topics for future meetings, carried over from the Oslo agenda:
> 
> Conforming Implementations
> Needed for CR exit.
> We may cover this in test development. We'll need at least two conforming
> implementations to test against.
> What's in the pipeline, what can we expect in terms of MUSTs, SHOULDs, etc.
> Will we have gaps?
> 
> 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? 
> 
> 
>