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

PROPOSAL: CLOSE ISSUE-40: How should we define key discovery, noting asynchronicity

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:35:21 +0100
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Message-ID: <239D7A53E5B17B4BB20795A7977613A45E082E853F@CROEXCFWP04.gemalto.com>
Hi All,
Based on both editor's agreement, we will have a formal decision during our next call about CLOSING the Issue-40. 
Regards,
Virginie

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] 
Sent: lundi 11 février 2013 02:36
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: GALINDO Virginie; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Move ISSUE-40: How should we define key discovery, noting asynchronicity ( was Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - classifying issues )


On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:

> I still believe we should CLOSE this, rather than MOVE it.
> 
> Mark, given the Key Discovery API, this use case as written is met, is it not?

As far as I am concerned, yes. We could close this one.

.Mark

> 
> It would seem like any "related issues" should be opened as new 
> issues, rather than keeping this rather overloaded issue open.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
>> Splitting into a separate thread so people can actually follow the discussion.
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/40
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:25 AM, GALINDO Virginie 
>> <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With respect to our discussions during our call this week, I would 
>>> suggest the following categorization of ISSUES, taking into account 
>>> the following tools :
>>> 
>>> -          Associate ISSUES with appropriate PRODUCT (and we have 4 products
>>> at the moment, the low level PI, the high level API, the use case, 
>>> the Key
>>> Discovery)
>>> 
>>> -          Put some issues in the POSTPONED mode to highlight the fact that
>>> it seems to be important for the group, but there is no contribution 
>>> at the moment.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-40 : Move ISSUE to product Key Discovery.
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-34 : Remove product reference and Associate POSTPONE state.
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-30 : Associate with Key Discovery product
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-26 : No change, but expecting proposal and change state to 
>>> POSTPONED, if no contribution in the coming 3 weeks.
>>> 
>>> ISSUE 25 : Associate with Key Discovery product
>>> 
>>> ISSUE 24 : Remove any product associated.
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-19 : No change, but expecting proposal and change state to 
>>> POSTPONED, if no contribution in the coming 3 weeks.
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-15 : Remove product associated and mark as POSTPONED.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This mail does not address the discussion for closing or not issues, 
>>> but rather classifying it correctly.
>>> 
>>> Discussion about closing issues is under the responsibility of the 
>>> WG and editors of the product associated (if any).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Virginie
> 
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 09:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2013 09:35:53 GMT