ISSUE-167

Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
wsc-xit
Raised by:
Johnathan Nightingale
Opened on:
2008-01-07
Description:
Review comment: We are supplying normative language for no-interaction certs which, aiui, are still purely conceptual. That feels like defining new protocols to me, particularly since the definition cites a non-existent reference at the moment. If this is out there in the world and deployed, then I think our language is fine, but I don't think we want to be in the business of defining x509 extensions.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology? (from johnath@mozilla.com on 2008-01-07)
  2. Re: ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology? (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-01-07)
  3. ISSUE-167: Should Section 5.3.1 specify normative details for a theoretical technology? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-01-07)

Related notes:

Duplicate of ISSUE-119

Mary Ellen Zurko, 7 Jan 2008, 19:00:35

Display change log ATOM feed


Mary Ellen Zurko <mzurko@us.ibm.com>, Chair, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 167.html,v 1.1 2010/10/11 09:35:09 dom Exp $