Re: Extensibility reviews?

I think the idea of nominating "someone" to review is dangerous and not in
line with the spirit of the W3C review.

We need everyone to review AND file bugs for anything wonky they see. Just
because we may or may not have a volunteer does not mean they will notice
everything or things will be timely.

So please, EVERYONE, review and file bugs.
On Aug 12, 2014 5:57 AM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Although the great debate over whether non-NIST curves should be part
> of the main spec continues, I think a very practical task that will
> block us getting out of CR will regardless is the extensibility issue.
>
> In particular, we need someone to go over the spec in detail to look
> for extensibility points *in the text of the main spec*:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618
>
> Any volunteers?
>
>   cheers,
>      harry
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT6g7+AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcdFsP/iacyEf6sKH8EOiVthvvXL5w
> HHYUtusS8WEU137T9YD4sPGxOrPt13AE2LCqGezqu3uROr+2y02YsjIqgvd/8bWD
> kMxwZ5mJoWpz6p7/u/QLN/FkqiVcFLHPFDremPtDxBA3fu2PoISIbakqHrkR4YDb
> /DyoqdhlXisMXRVhc1fyT8eJx8/1sZCyByfLWSQUoZ1NE8YsSI3BKuZlMfreYjlG
> wYtswJ0EdQUNieAHSWznpAUBfDL7n0RDp3E1Lt0pruHAQejGqvUTAaOAFewkcXtc
> BZHMM7GOXzoVkhDpXdiF+9/njybetkf/eeJEpQC/ZNNxEbxwtFwD9PMtVjPgGL3y
> dVej4y+Cm3nhTzETcnhLRnqX990Tu5hXJwn3UpR74Oz1DO9ZDD7Rsy7qvEYJDAIZ
> 88gW9DUbphrl6gpOP77esMatbvqWPZRcS5ptjM9xZGqUg2EDbjckQkRwusLRI2IQ
> 8pF0j5OfySDw176zyUH0HtUARsOkXTuKLtTxxcpC4uyEwmuuSCc0M52bGljWAZ7H
> BPyfJgVqy4gN0eaTRwO1+IC1HNXGLxH2ZUOzkz5LbZezEVHEtPbNC4gvmDE/CM9t
> A/fLpLfw/gOp8OwPvXKpDrH6gA2aDCjilwNhNMF5uvexJuv5JIo7Ir6Ut48pJoFd
> r/yEzCxTN+wsa93R6Rid
> =LTOl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>