Re: [HASMAT] moving forward -

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Thu, 02 September 2010 22:38 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kingsmountain.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=FyXyUGF6Y8kiJ7N4zTaIwr/iMtb2cdAAtCnNPA6Hr1EBfINBni8P4kDr8ZQ9muX63iMjQdpMFMvs9PueTYSPgXw9p2pDDrQipW2EvzQGCeCL3ThxncZtYXb5lbHPuWuF;
Message-ID: <4C8026C3.6020603@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:35:47 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HASMAT list <hasmat@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward -
Precedence: list

Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com> observed..
 >
 > Not being present at the BoF, I missed the discussion about removing the
 > creation of a long-term security framework.

However, from one of the proposed versions of the charter..

 > 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.


Basically, we didn't so much "remove" the "creation of a long-term security 
framework" work item, but reduced scope at this time to deriving "problem 
statement(s) and requirements".  Then, based upon that work, we can either 
re-charter this WG or form a new one (not a ton of difference in those 
approaches) to actually address/fulfill said "problem statement(s) and 
requirements".

Breaking the scope/work up in this way helps keep things manageable and 
timeframes more realistic.

=JeffH

Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - =JeffH