Re: [HASMAT] moving forward

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 01 September 2010 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1F33A6855 for <>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlfK97FNhLxV for <>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3DB3A69C1 for <>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A085D400EE for <>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:43:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:40:41 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:40:48 -0000

On 8/24/10 7:17 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> As I've said to Jeff back in Pays-Bas, I'm less concerned about the
> name than about the charter.  The problem description at the BoF said
> that a main issue is that this stuff has been previously dealt with in
> a haphazard manner.  We then looked at three haphazard drafts, which
> the charter proposes to standardize.  This doesn't address the core
> problem.
> What does address the core problem is the part about studying the
> problem space.  From one of the proposed charters:
>> In addition, this working group will consider the overall topic of HTTP
>> application security and compose a "problem statement and requirements"
>> document that can be used to guide further work.
> I'd like to see much more emphasis placed on this part, and have the
> scope of this hashed out a bit more.  I think the focus of the WG
> should be on this, with the three existing drafts as something we do
> along the way... rather than the other way 'round, as it is now.

That is indeed the larger and more important goal, so I agree that its
well worth spending more of our time up front on a clear and
comprehensive problem statement that can drive our future work.


Peter Saint-Andre