W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Registries and Interoperability

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:48:16 -0500
Cc: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49829BAA-6873-4290-8F6D-5C3C77480FD6@mozilla.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>

On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> No, the process I suggested generally would involve handing off after the lifetime of a WG the following two items:
> 
> 1) maintaining security considerations per identifier to the CFRG, which operate on a public list
> 2) maintaining requests for a new algorithm identifiers in a public registry, with requests on a public list and the test-cases being publican accessible.
> 
> Some may consider this sensible as the crypto landscape does change and will thus likely change after the lifespan of this WG.



It is true that much of the process behind WebApps and HTML is bolstered by the fact that we don't envision these WGs as ever really "closing" (which might be like saying the web's done).  I'm wondering if W3C might be amenable to another model that doesn't involve re-chartering a WG, but does allow for spec and/or document maintenance, which is what draws me to the WHATWG, which is another option, if there's a willing editor.

For instance, new identifiers (2. above) reminds me of the potentially ongoing problem of DOMException and DOMError.  Both WHATWG DOM Spec [1] and the DOM4 [2] specification in W3C cite the W3C Bug Database as a way of adding new exception codes, if necessary (the latest added one comes from File API, namely EncodingError).   I'm not sure we can totally classify DOMException and DOMError as "done" for all time.  I think it's likely to be the same with Web Crypto, since saying anything security related is "done" is unwise, as is the assumption that further algorithms won't proliferate. 

Instead of a registry, can we do something like active bug discussions, and keep *public active?  This is what makes WHATWG attractive, but I understand that patent considerations might limit the merits of merely migrating there.

-- A*

[1] "Note: If an error name is not listed here, please file a bug as indicated at the top of this specification and it will be addressed shortly. Thanks!" http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#error-names-0

[2] "If an error name is not listed here, please file a bug as indicated at the top of this specification and it will be addressed shortly. Thanks!" https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#exception-domexception

 
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 21:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 21:48:48 GMT