ISSUE-134

Let others besides industry define AAC criteria

State:

CLOSED

Product:

wsc-xit

Raised by:

Mary Ellen Zurko

Opened on:

2007-12-14

Description:

"designed to establish accountability in accordance with an industry standard set of criteria"

Is "industry standard" too constraining? What about government standards, and standard standards? Do we really mean to leave them out? I wouldn't, so if we do, I'd like to know why?


I'm throwing this comment in here to, just to be sure I get an answer:

"It is further assumed that Issuer and Subject information included in Augmented Assurance Certificates is valid, and intended to be displayed to users."

What does valid mean in this context? Does it refer to checking the chain (and URL), or something else?

"intended to be displayed to users" is interesting, given our charter. Does this really mean the low bar it implies; strings that are intended for human consumption (but no particular understanding)?

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-432 on Anil Saldhana to Incorporate the changed industry standard to practices text - due 2008-05-20, closed

Related emails:

1. Meeting record: 2008-05-13 (from tlr@w3.org on 2008-06-06)
2. WSC WG f2f May 2008 Agenda (v 1.1) (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-05-09)
3. ISSUE-134 Let others besides industry define AAC criteria (from Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com on 2008-04-25)
4. ISSUE-134: Let others besides industry define AAC criteria [wsc-xit] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-12-14)

Related notes:

Display change log