Single page view
Not all comments have been marked as
replied to. The disposition of comments
is not complete.
In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.
In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.
| Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply |
|---|
|
LC-2162
|
|
|
tocheck |
|---|
LC-2163
Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> |
As we didn't have a quorum in UWA to discuss POWDER today, I'd like to
pose the following query...
According to the POWDER primer, certification of DRs is indicated in
order to elevate trust in descriptions.
Who is proposed to provide/manage such certifications? Would this be the
current SSL cert providers, for example?
If so, who says that these providers are qualified to assess/create
descriptions?
Or is the issue of the environment in which certification is managed
considered out of scope for the POWDER WG?
The question was raised internally within my company when someone
observed that this might be the creation of another "money making
scheme", as some people believe the SSL cert providers have been given a
license to print money.
Comments and clarifications welcome.
(Otherwise, we find POWDER intriguing, though we wonder what is meant by
"use of arbitrary RDF in POWDER documents" in the recent request for
feedback.)
---Rotan.
|
|
tocheck |
|---|