RE: [STF] STF Concall Minutes 7/22/02

I think I'd prefer the intra-STF discussions to be done on the public
www-ws-arch mailing list.  This is a public working group.  Those who want
to work "without being distracted by having to respond to public comments to
raw ideas or writings meant for STF members only" should have voted for the
www-ws-arch group to be a private discussion forum.  I don't necessarily
agree with the group's discussions being public, but that's the way it's
chartered.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Joseph Hui
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: [STF] STF Concall Minutes 7/22/02
> 
> 
> 
> STF Meeting Minutes 7/22/2002
> 
> Logistics
> =========
> Meeting Date    07/22/2002
> Meeting Time    12:00-13:00 PDT (US Pacific Day-light Time)
> Duration        1 Hour
> Chair           Joe Hui
> Scribe          Joe Hui
> 
> Present
> =======
> (AB) Abbie Barbir, Nortel Networks
> (AD) Ayse Dilber, AT&T
> (HH) Hugo Haas, W3G
> (JH) Joe Hui, Exodus
> (HL) Hal Lockhart, Entegrity Solutions (Invited guest from OASIS)
> (SM) Steven Monetti, AT&T
> (DR) Darran Rolls, Waveset
> 
> Agendas & Minutes
> =================
> 
> Intra-STF Communication
> 
>   Meeting minute preview & sanitization
> 
>    Joe, Abbie, Steve were for member previewing and 
>    sanitizing concall minutes prior to their release
>    to public.
> 
>    Hugo was for releasing the minutes raw right after meetings.
> 
>    The rest expressed they could go with either way.
> 
>    Resolved:
>    STF meeting minutes are to be circulated among attendees
>    for correction or editing prior to their release to
>    the www-ws-arch@w3.org mailing list.
> 
>    Also resolved:
>    Intra-STF discussion should be archived by cc'ing to
>    www-archive@w3.org.  This allows the team members to
>    discuss issues semi-publicly without being distracted
>    by having to respond to public comments to raw ideas
>    or writings meant for STF members only.
> 
> 
> Status Update & Sync Up
> 
>   The STF is in preparation for recommending to the
>   WG co-chairs for a last call for AG004's closure.
>   All STF members were to sync up, in reading at least,
>   on Joe's "AG004 Closure Sought" message on www-ws-arch,
>   that called for closing out remaining security req issues.
> 
>   To the end of closing out AG004, several action 
>   items were assigned.  (See Action Items below.)
> 
>   Security use cases/scenarios were coming along: Hugo'd
>   integrated the travel-agency cases into USTF's doc,
>   and would continue the integration jointly with Steve,
>   incorporating as appropriate the materials that Steve
>   had harvested from external sources.  (IPR was a concern
>   in using harvested materials.  Extra care would be
>   exercised in dealing with them.)
> 
>   The STF also needed to continue the drive toward
>   the other two deliverables: the ws-sec-wg-req-scoping,
>   and the techs-to-look-at.
> 
>   Darran probed how deep the STF should go into
>   presenting the technologies to be recommended,
>   such as those he had listed in a www-ws-arch message.
>   There was no one-size-fits-all answer; but it was
>   understood that it would not be the STF's job to write
>   tutorials, and the discourses might selectively vary
>   in depth, dependent upon context and relevancy.
> 
>   The security workshop/bof idea being floated in the
>   w3c-ws-arch list was of keen interest to Abbie and Ayse.
>   However, in the interst of focusing on the STF's
>   deliverables for next week, no discussion of the idea
>   was scheduled in the agenda.  It would definitely be
>   discussed in a future meeting.
> 
> 
>  Privacy
> 
>   Hugo clarified the remaining issue on Privacy,
>   namely AC020.5; and would also do it for the WG 
>   audience as in an effort to help closing out AG004.
>   (Read also Action Items below.)
> 
> 
>  Assessment from OASIS
> 
>   Hal was solicited to provide an assessment for the
>   portions of security work that OASIS could do in
>   terms of satisfying the WSAWG's security requirements.
>   Due mainly to the reason that the WSTC (for Web
>   Security Task Council?) of OASIS hadn't commenced
>   its work yet (not until Sept 4), there was no
>   definitive answer.
> 
> 
>  Action Items:
> 
>  * Steve to provide a glossary-grade definition for Auditing
>    in terms that are most relevant to the WSAWG's context.
>    (Per general understanding, there's "active auditing"
>    where a system is probed for detecting security holes;
>    and there's also "passive auditing" where logs are kept
>    as audit trails for accounting and intrusion detection.
>    The WSAWG's sec req is about the latter.)
> 
>  * Darran to elaborate on the management aspect of security.
> 
>  * Steve to join Hugo on work of integrating "travel-agency-
>    based" security use cases/scenarios into the UTSF's doc,
>    incorporating externally harvested materials as appropriate.
>    (The uc doc is currently frozen, save for editorial changes.
>    Their work will be aiming for the next release.)
> 
>  * Hugo to clear out the remaining privacy issue, namely AC020.5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>