ISSUE-208: Confidential Flag

Confidential Flag

State:

CLOSED

Product:

MMIArchLLC

Raised by:

James Barnett

Opened on:

2012-06-25

Description:

From: Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:21:40 +0200
Message-ID: <cntxxlfi2o4kmxgwop7ar646.1338488931153@email.android.com>
To: www-multimodal@w3.org

Hey there,

I am not able to implement assert 149 since the specification does not state explicitly what is meant by "the information" that should not be logged.

There are several possible interpretations:
- the request/response messages
- any further action that is taken in response to the confidental request

Also: How should an MC deal with it, if is also an IM and creates new events in response to this confidental request? Should these requests also be confidental?

Unfortunately, the spec does not seem to be precise enough at this point so that I see no chance for me to implement the confidental support.

Dirk

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:19:00 -0400
To: <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010c01cd43f7$b74778b0$25d66a10$@conversational-technologies.com>

Hi Dirk,
We've discussed your question about the confidential flag in the Working
Group. Our intention was that the exact interpretation of the confidential
flag would be implementation-specific. However, it's also worth pointing out
that this feature was called out as "at risk" in the Candidate
Recommendation spec, due to a potential lack of implementations. If we don't
get two implementations of this feature it will be removed from the spec.
Since we are tracking all comment threads at this point, please let us know
by June 15 if this resolution is acceptable, otherwise we will assume that
you agree with our decision (but it is very helpful to have an explicit
response).
Best regards,
Debbie Dahl, MMI WG Chair

From: Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:13:37 +0200
Message-ID: <1339402417.1916.13.camel@homer-simpson.tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Cc: www-multimodal@w3.org

Hey Debbie,

I am not sure if this really removes my problems with the interpretation
of the specification. Although it is considered to be at risk of
removal, the specification should be clear about the intention. Maybe,
you should add that the implementation is application specific. I really
miss that in the specification.
Also, I am not sure if all those possible behaviors (I mentioned some
possible interpretations in my first email) can be toggled by a simple
switch. Especially, if you want to support more than one of those
behaviors at the same time.

>From that point of view this solution is not acceptable, sorry.

Maybe, adding that hint that the interpretation of the confidential is
application specific and further hints can be submitted in the data
field could help to overcome this weakness. As a consequence the hint
about logging should be removed since this is only one possible
interpretation. Maybe, it could still serve as an example?

Best,
Dirk

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:23:34 -0400
To: "'Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka'" <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
Cc: <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03b501cd47ee$8d41f130$a7c5d390$@conversational-technologies.com>

Hi Dirk,
The MMI Working Group has discussed your questions. We agree that it would be good to clarify that the interpretation of "confidential" is application-specific.
However, there are two possible eventualities.
1. If we do get two implementations of the "confidential" attribute, the feature will be included in the spec, and the next version of the spec (the Proposed Recommendation) will include clarifying language that emphasizes that the meaning of "confidential " is application-specific.
2. If we don't get two implementations of the "confidential" attribute, the feature will be removed from the spec altogether, and consequently we won't need any clarifications.
Thanks again for your comments, and also thanks for your quick response to our proposed resolutions. As with your earlier questions, please let us know before June 15 whether or not you accept this proposal.

Best regards,
Debbie Dahl

From: Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:05:42 +0200
Message-ID: <kbtvng2vrogppxt30hm1g8s9.1339437942603@email.android.com>
To: www-multimodal@w3.org



-------- Originalnachricht --------
Betreff: RE: [arch] confidental flag
Von: "Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka" <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
An: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Cc:

Hey Debbie,

The solution is acceptable if the spec will be updated accordingly if the confidential flag will not be removed. It still needs some more details, but I can understand that you want to shift that work.

Dirk

DISPOSITION=CLARIFICATION
ACCEPTANCE=EXPLICIT

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: updated arch spec and DoC (from ashimura@w3.org on 2012-07-17)
2. updated arch spec and DoC (from Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com on 2012-07-09)
3. ISSUE-208: Confidential Flag [MMIArchLLC] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-06-25)

Related notes:

Display change log