W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:22:43 +0100
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Cc: Art.Barstow@nokia.com, w3c@marcosc.com, public-xmlsec@w3.org, tlr@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <1881750.3LNhgMqqPZ@freud>
Hi all, 

Frederick is innocent! 

My aim as PAG chair is to conclude by March. The solution is still open. We 
don't know yet whether the algorithms used by XML SIG or ENC really violate 
the declared patents. We will hopefully know until then. 

I'm still waiting for one response from MIT but will proceed without them if 
they do not respond by the end of the week.

Again, those are hopes, not hard deadlines. I don't think a PAG can have hard 
deadlines unless the algorithm is "deprecate the feature if not solved until 
fixed date". I guess Frederick was arguing against that logic leading to 
deprecation of ECC.

Happy New Year!

Rigo 

On Tuesday 03 January 2012 13:07:46 Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> No I am not.
> 
> Marcos took my email that expressed my hopes and turned it into a hard
> deadline, which I do not agree with.
> 
> I suggest we let  Rigo/Thomas continue this thread.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > On 12/29/11 11:18 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
> >> Marcos
> >> 
> >> My expectation is that we should have a PAG update on progress in the
> >> first week of January (hopefully) and a timeline like Rigo noted,
> >> with full resolution of the iPR issue by March - but only the PAG
> >> chair knows the reality since my expectations are as a "customer" of
> >> the PAG output. I entirely agree with you that "years" is not
> >> appropriate.> 
> > Are you saying that if the ECC PAG caused by RIM does not complete its
> > work by March, the XML Sec WG will do the factoring as Marcos describes
> > below?
> > 
> > -AB
> > 
> >> Apologies, here is the link:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Dec/0026.html
> >> 
> >> regards, Frederick
> >> 
> >> Frederick Hirsch
> >> Nokia
> >> 
> >> On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:22 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 14:11, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com 
wrote:
> >>>> As I said before, this action is premature and we should let the
> >>>> PAG conclude (or at least wait for a status report) - the W3C
> >>>> Team may have more to say, but if this is on the order of weeks I
> >>>> do not think making work here to have apparent progress is
> >>>> useful. I have not seen a definitive statement from the ECC PAG
> >>>> chair.>>> 
> >>> That's fine. I guess as long as we don't have to wait one or two
> >>> years (and I say that with a serious face!).>>> 
> >>>> Did you read the message from Brian LaMacchia? If not, please read
> >>>> it, as it provides additional argument against this proposed
> >>>> change.>>> 
> >>> Pointer please?
> >>> 
> >>>> I am against revising XML Signature 1.1 until I understand the
> >>>> actual PAG status and until we have XML Security WG agreement.
> >>>> This endless email debate is not helpful and I'm not sure I
> >>>> understand the urgency related to widgets apart from a desire to
> >>>> mark it as complete.>>> 
> >>> The urgency is just that (getting it to Rec).
> >>> 
> >>> But academically, the other arguments that were made are valid. Those 
were:
> >>>     * a /latest/ location
> >>>     * decupling algorithms, etc, from processing.
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:24:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT