[foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft

peter williams home_pw at msn.com
Thu Dec 16 11:37:10 CET 2010


Ok. I was just trying to ensure the incubator is not treated as a work group
- by excluding all the stuff one has to do AFTER the RFC is written... to
get it along the standards track. Ill assume W3C has similar steps, as
RFC-grade work works its way up the W3C standard track.

At the same the incubator is what those who drive it decide it is... It will
really come down to the leadership skill of the chair. 

On such as export ciphers, I was just trying to show how NOT to get bogged
down in engineering the solution and stay focused on incubating the new
field; since like dealing with interoperability of legacy browser https
support in general, ensuring the security of the edge cases of negotiating
old export ciphersuites can consume immense resources (to ensure all that
legacy crap doesn't compromise modern handshakes).

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story at bblfish.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:49 AM
To: peter williams
Cc: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft


On 16 Dec 2010, at 00:17, peter williams wrote:

> "1.2 Out of Scope
> Making the protocol complex by attempting to solve all problems. "
> 
> Enumerate the classes of things that are out of scope: e.g.
> 
> Interoperability considerations with operational or historical https

Not sure. Don't see why one should put that out of scope.

> Worrying about the implications for export grade ciphers

Did not even think about that.

> Mappings onto API frameworks

People mean so many different things by API frameworks, that this is a bit
dangerous.

> Tracking IETF TLS I-Ds (focus only on RFCs)

> Consideration of must/should/ topics, for such as FOAF document 
> notations

I think that could be in scope. But I am not sure what you mean.

> Applicability Statements
> Coherency analyses with web architecture

No I think we might do that.

> The above are not hard to formulate. They are basically what IETF/IESG  
> does for a standards track efforts, that we don't do in an incubation
exercise.

I think it is better left vague what is out of scope. An XG is a very light
weight process, and I think we all pretty much understand here where we want
to go. So out of scope will be pretty much anything that sidetracks us from
getting there.

Henrhy


> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of 
> Henry Story
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:18 PM
> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: [foaf-protocols] new WebID Charter draft
> 
> So I tried to apply the suggestions put forward by everyone on this list.
> Here they are. 
> 
> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/12/15/webid-charter-draft.html
> 
> With github changes here
> 
> https://github.com/bblfish/webid-spec/blob/master/webid-charter-draft.
> html
> 
> As previously, Feedback is welcome.
> We can then start the process tomorrow hopefully.
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/




More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list