- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:46:50 -0500
- To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Stéphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Closing out this thread, but not before correcting a few pieces of misinformation. On 11/22/2014 02:31 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > Yes, and SM was not accepted by the IETF. SM was never submitted to IETF. Review comments on JOSE using SM as a comparison were submitted to IETF. > particularly when a well-known cryptographer such as Manger found a > number of beginner crypto errors in a draft. ... errors which were largely editorial and fixed within the week: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg03793.html > Further, pretending it is a "standard" or endorsed by the W3C is > problematic That's a gross misrepresentation of both the intent of the email and what actually happened. I don't doubt that there was confusion, and I'll be the first to admit that was my fault in not using the proper language in the review email. However, I thought that was cleared up by you very soon after the initial email was sent and therefore, there was very little to no damage done: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg03737.html > The general strategy of taking a note made by a few people, branding > it a "W3C specification" due to a Community Group process, and then > pretending something is a normative standard and pushing it on other > WGs or outsiders who may not know any better is something to be > actively discouraged for *any specification*. Again, this is a gross misrepresentation of both the intent and what actually happened. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: High-Stakes Credentials and Web Login http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/
Received on Monday, 1 December 2014 19:47:15 UTC