RE: On Registries

On Aug 7, 2014 7:56 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Replies about the W3C’s positive role in ensuring quality of algorithm
registry entries inline at the end of this message…
>
>
>
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 7:44 PM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: Mark Watson; public-webcrypto@w3.org
> Subject: RE: On Registries
>
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2014 7:31 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your insightful reply, Mark.  A few comments inline below…
> >
> > From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 6:02 PM
> > To: Mike Jones
> > Cc: Ryan Sleevi; public-webcrypto@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: On Registries
> >
> > On Thursday, August 7, 2014, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Simple.  In the first case, the algorithm is a data value.  In the
second case, it’s encoded in an API.  Data values are easily extensible.
APIs are not.  That’s why extending the space of algorithms by registering
new data values makes a world of sense.  Expending the algorithms by adding
new APIs for each would be clunky, procedurally slow, and mostly unworkable.
> >
> > I think what Ryan is saying is that it should be no easier to add an
algorithm than it is to add a new API (or, more strongly, that a new
algorithm *is* a new API and _therefore_ should be no easier to add).
> >
> > I believe you’ve accurately identified the heart of the disagreement
here, Mark.
> >
> > IF we decided that it should be easier than this to add new algorithms
and especially if we decided that groups other than W3C Working Groups
should be able to do so, then a registry makes sense as a mechanism to
coordinate that.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Otherwise (which is where we are now), then the definitive list of
algorithms is to be found in the sum total of the output of the W3C
WebCrypto Working Group and nowhere else.
> >
> > If we decide that he definitive list of algorithms is only to be
produced by the W3C WebCrypto Working Group, I believe that would be a
significant missed opportunity.  The WebCrypto API is an exercise in
packaging algorithms developed by cryptographers for use by Web developers,
just like JOSE is.  Neither working group’s primary expertise is
cryptography.  Cryptographers should be the ones to write the extensions
specs defining new algorithms – not us.  Some of those may occur in the W3C
but some may occur in the IETF and some may be individual drafts by people
such as Dan Bernstein, David McGrew, and Brian LaMacchia.
> >
> > We would be doing the WebCrypto API and the Web a significant
disservice if we don’t enable people other than us to define and register
new algorithms for use with WebCrypto.  We should be humble enough to
recognize that defining new crypto algorithms is not our expertise and let
those who are experts define them for use with our spec, no matter where
they choose to do the work.
> >
>
> I agree with the sentiment that anyone should be able to write
definitions for algorithms, and am excited to see Trevor's Curve25519 draft.
>
> I disagree with the sentiment that it should happen outside the W3C. To
do so is to return to the browser wars, where both Microsoft and Mozilla,
though well motivated, wrecked great harm through "embrace, extend,
extinguish" and the introduction at large of new vendor-specific APIs,
often without specs (or without free licensing, or with great patent
encumbrance, or through active hostility towards other UAs efforts to
interop)
>
>
>
> The W3C (and the WHATWG) exist to help prevent that terrible harm from
ever happening again. The way to do that is by having multiple UAs
coordinate and ship features responsibly, to agree on specifications, and
to avoid vendor lock-in.
>
> Regardless of this group's cryptographic expertise, which i agree is
unfortunately lacking, we are filled with UA implementors, the sole
entities with the power to make - or break - the web; For developers, for
other UA implementors, and most importantly, for users, for this generation
of the web and those to come. For that, there can and should be no
alternative - we must agree, as UAs, and the W3C exists precisely to
support and guide that agreement.
>
>
>
>
>
> Suggesting that using a responsibly managed registry would be a return to
the “browser wars” or that features would be shipped without specifications
is hyperbole.  I’m only advocating a specification-required registry with
expert review.  The W3C would appoint the appropriate experts to ensure
that the specifications registering algorithms are clear and well-written
and meet any other criteria decided by the W3C.  The W3C can ensure the
quality of registered algorithms without having to write all the drafts
itself.  It’s unnecessary and detrimental hubris to think that we’re the
only ones qualified to do so.
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike

Expert Review is exactly the detrimental sort of stuff that got us into
this.

The W3C REC track is exactly that. A path for _anyone_ to write specs,
submit them to the WG, for UAs and users to agree in interest, and to
develop and publish such specifications with clear views on patents,
interoperability, and applicability to the web.

No single expert is qualified to reflect consensus of a multi-stakeholder
UA community, which is a fundamental and nonnegotiable portion of any Web
API.

So if we talk a panel of experts, who are they? Well, we probably want some
UAs, those are essential. We probably need some cryptographers, since
security is key. We should hear from developers, since this matters to
them. And we should probably have a few representatives from the public.

And suddenly, you have an Expert Panel that is indistinguishable in form or
function from a WG. And without having to reinvent a process for that
review.

Any solution that fails to go through the W3C/WHATWG process is, in spirit
and effect, a return to the browser wars - including the designation of
sole experts (which the W3C also has readily available if this WG should
ever need - the TAG and AB)