Re: [HASMAT] moving forward

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 01 September 2010 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: hasmat@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hasmat@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61503A69D3 for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PiP1pph3qrso for <hasmat@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177443A6964 for <hasmat@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8072400EE; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:41:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4C7ED5F9.30103@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:38:49 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com>
References: <4C6EC48A.5020803@stpeter.im> <4C7D6949.5040401@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C7D6949.5040401@mozilla.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hasmat@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward
X-BeenThere: hasmat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <hasmat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hasmat>, <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hasmat>
List-Post: <mailto:hasmat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hasmat>, <mailto:hasmat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:38:56 -0000

On 8/31/10 2:42 PM, Brandon Sterne wrote:
> On 08/20/2010 11:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Following up on the successful BoF we held in Maastricht, I'd like to
>> keep us moving toward formation of a working group. Here are some open
>> tasks:
> 
> Thanks, Peter, for keeping the ball rolling here.
> 
>> 2. Charter. We had some feedback at the BoF about charter revisions,
>> especially focusing on the three drafts under immediate consideration
>> and removing the text about developing a long-term framework for web
>> security.
> 
> Not being present at the BoF, I missed the discussion about removing the
> creation of a long-term security framework. 

A recording can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/

> If the group focuses on
> standardizing a small set of security mechanisms won't it be
> contributing to the "sprinkling" problem in the first part of the
> Objectives and Scope section?

Sort of. :)

As I recall, the objection was that we were making big promises and not
delivering, so either don't make big promises or else deliver mainly on
the big promises (but that's a large task and one that's not yet well
defined, thus perhaps leading the IESG to worry about scope creep).

>> 3. Name. Some people have said that "HASMAT" isn't very descriptive of
>> the subject matter, and that we might want something like "WEBSEC". As
>> long as folks don't think "WEBSEC" means that we'd be working on
>> everything under the sun related to the security of the web, I'd be fine
>> with a name like that. Other suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Personally, I do think WEBAPPSEC is the right name.  Someone pointed out
> that webappsec.org is registered already, but that space is occupied by
> the Web Application Security Consortium who generally go by the acronym
> WASC.  Other than the domain issue, is this still a problem?

The Secretariat strongly prefers (close to mandates) acronyms that are
at most 8 characters. Database and other tooling issues ensure if we try
to use longer acronyms.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/