Re: draft FF Implementation report

I've updated the version of the FF Implementation report according to this 
and discussion with Kai (does not conform on III and XXIII). See:
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/ImplementationReports

There are now also some cryptic notes there on the discussions Thomas and 
I had on potential changes based on the Implemetation reports. More mail 
to come. 





From:   Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM@Lotus
To:     "Joe Steele <steele" <steele@adobe.com>
Cc:     "public-wsc-wg@w3.org" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Date:   02/05/2010 12:22 PM
Subject:        Re: draft FF Implementation report
Sent by:        public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org



Actually 5. Johnathan's getting data on III and XXIII from Kai Engert. 

I think it's a mistake that I numbered XLIII separately. It's just a 
rollup of the items below it. Hence Johnathan's question on that. 

And yes, I think XLIV should be "Conforms Basic". It's confusing if you do 
things consistently; and we don't really help by giving examples of what 
would be inconsistent. 

on LIV, the question is doesn't XLIX cover that. Since at least in this 
case, it indicates whether or not the server produced a cert. I believe it 
does. 





From:        Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
To:        Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM@Lotus
Cc:        "public-wsc-wg@w3.org" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Date:        01/26/2010 01:10 PM
Subject:        Re: draft FF Implementation report
Sent by:        public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org



I see four items in the Firefox implementation report which have "???" as 
the compliance level (III, XXIII, XLIII and XLIV).

For XLIII and XLIV (6.2 Additional Security Context Information) it seems 
like Firefox 3.6 does conform with "Basic". What am I missing?

Joe

On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

is posted at

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/ImplementationReports