Re: clarifying identity signal and TLS indicator [ISSUE-244]

Since it's where we were before this round, I could go with that. It seems 
more mobile friendly. What do others think?

I'll put this on the agenda to resolve for Wednesday. It'll be a quick 
meeting. We'll clean up actions and issues, decide, then I'll send out the 
LC responses. 

          Mez





From:   Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
To:     WSC WG public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Cc:     Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date:   04/16/2010 05:12 PM
Subject:        clarifying identity signal and TLS indicator [ISSUE-244]
Sent by:        public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org



In dealing with timeless' comments:
                 http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/ISSUE-244
                 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/WD-wsc-ui-20100309/2380

 
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2010Mar/0007.html

... we seem to have made a mistake during our 31 March meeting:
                 http://www.w3.org/2010/03/31-wsc-minutes.html

If you look at the comment in 0007.html, then you'll notice that timeless 
is complaining about the identity signal.  That's what we *discussed* 
during the 31 March call.  However, the links in the minutes, the 
resolution, and the subsequent edit are all about the *TLS* indicator.

To mess up things further, there's another part of timeless' comments that 
seems to suggest he's objecting against the language for the TLS indicator 
in the same way in which he objects against the language for the identity 
signal:
                 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-authentication/2010Mar/0008.html


(Kudos to Mez for noticing the screw-up.  The blame goes to me for copying 
and pasting the wrong link into IRC during the meeting.)

Up to the latest Last Call draft, we've treated the conformance criteria 
for TLS indicator and identity signal symmetrically:

- in the Candidate Recommendation, both were SHOULD primary, otherwise 
MUST secondary
- in the latest Last Call, both were MUST primary
- in the current editor's draft, we've introduced a divergence between the 
two.

PROPOSAL, to address the comment: Let's return to the symmetric situation 
and change both to be SHOULD primary, MUST secondary.

Thoughts?

(Editor's draft not yet updated.)

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