W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Digital Signatures for Credentials

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 01:30:34 +0100
Message-ID: <547D082A.5060209@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
CC: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Stéphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>


On 12/01/2014 08:46 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 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

Then again, bring up the relevant use-cases to JOSE rather than
re-invent wheel or ask W3C to do so.

> 
>> 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.

Then just don't do it again  - thanks!

> 
> -- manu
> 
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 00:30:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:21 UTC