RE: Documenting implicit assumptions?

The group is starting to define itself. Its starting with a tension point, which manifests in tone and "style". This induced today's flames. We need to solve this one.
 
Is the group here to finish off and rubber-stamp the renamed FOAF+SSL spec (much like IRTF expected IETF to rubber stamp its first spec on "the internet CA [singular]" in 1987), or
 
is it to incubate a multi-year standards process - in which W3C community gets to define a modern version of https that, for the first time, can be made consistent with the rest of the (uptodate) standards in the family?
 
I want the latter. While SSL/TLS has evolved over the years and kept pace with changes in the internet, https has not changed a jot as the web has changed. It's still a support layer for hypermedia documents rendering on a page, one parallel connection per frame in a frameset or one connection per image in a compound document.
 
My gut is that there is only one thing in the https/TLS concept set that anyone wants or needs to complement the logical framework : and thats the handshake. Its a security primitive, and it condenses years of crypto proofs down to something anyone can build upon - in a logical system. This sounds like an IDEAL match for the semweb world. Once the world of http URI deferencing during graph processing identifies how its nature evolves, once combined with the ssl handshake as an https URI, then we are set. WebID protocol delivering access control to a form, auto-populating fields obtained securely from a person's FOAF card on a linked server ...is a mere "application" - one of hundreds that will fall out. 
 
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:43:46 -0500
> From: msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Documenting implicit assumptions?
>