On 28 August 2012 17:12, Steingruebl, Andy <[email protected]> wrote: > I view this sort of like I view Zalewski's browser security handbook > (http://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Main).
On 28 August 2012 18:26, =JeffH <[email protected]> wrote: > Additionally, I was about to point to the browser security handbook (BSH) as > perhaps an example of what sort of document(s) wpkops will craft for web pki > -- one(s) featuring tables with rows denoting features/behavior and columns > denoting implementations. Different tables address different topics. > > https://code.google.com/p/browsersec/wiki/Part2 On 28 August 2012 18:26, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > For what it's worth this was one of my primary wants out of this effort. The Browser Security Handbook lists implementations and the observations about those implementations. But this group intends to list observations about implementations, along with hand-waving percentages... with no information about what implementation we're talking about? (I don't have any problem with hand-waving percentages for the record.) We're not scared talking about Browser Security features. And we're not talking about _vulnerabilities_ in hardware devices that would be difficult to patch and leave people vulnerable... It's just everyone seems to clam up when it comes time to say who actually can't support compression or whatever. I know no one is actually trying to perpetuate some sort of coverup - but at the same time *believing* that there's no nefarious purpose and still not seeing any info is pretty frustrating. -tom _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
