W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Should we do a call Monday re Last Call?

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:06:47 +0200
Message-ID: <5374E617.5050004@w3.org>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
CC: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1

On 05/15/2014 06:01 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
> wrote:
>> So let's keep it to discussion on the mailing list and hope we
>> get consensus - including the people from outside the WG who have
>> raised bugs during Last Call.
>> After May 20th, I'll begin compiling a draft status of all bugs
>> using some automated tools on top of Bugzilla (as we need to send
>> that in via email to W3C to get out of Last Call).
> Harry,
> I think you're rushing things if you think we're ready to exit last
> call and proceed to Call for Implementations. That alone is worth
> discussing with the group if you are attempting to advocate that
> path.

We do have to prepare for a Call for Implementations *at some point*
after May 20th. However, we will of course not exit Last Call to that
point till the group gets consensus and we can show W3C we've
addressed all the bugs. I believe that may take a while given the
amount of bugs still needing more treatment. So I'm not proposing to
move there directly.

What I am proposing is we track the comments from external reviewer as
satisfied or not, and whether or not they are formal objections. After
May 20th, it makes sense to begin that tracking process in a way that
can be dynamically updated from Bugzilla.

I'll send an email out after May 20th with the Bugzilla scraper that
generates what is called by W3C "Disposition of Comments". We'll
update that as consensus is reached on various open bugs.


>> I recommend we use the telecon if we have some significant
>> disagreement post-May 20th we can't work out on the mailing list,
>> but +1 for more time to work things out.
>> cheers, harry
>> On 05/15/2014 04:15 PM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>>> +1 on (3) No call, just mails (and consensus)… Regards, 
>>> Virginie
>>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rlb@ipv.sx] Sent: jeudi 15 mai
>>> 2014 15:24 To: Ryan Sleevi Cc: Harry Halpin;
>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org Subject: Re: Should we do a call Monday
>>> re Last Call?
>>> +1
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Sleevi
>>> <sleevi@google.com<mailto:
>> sleevi@google.com>> wrote:
>>> On May 15, 2014 1:53 AM, "Harry Halpin"
>>> <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:
>> hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>> In good news, the public seems to have noticed the API :) In
>>>> bad news, we have to resolve all the bugs raised by May 20th
>>>> over the next few weeks. Ryan's done a tremendous amount of
>>>> work responding.
>>>> There's been a few bugs raised that could require a call
>>>> since there seems to be some disagreement. In particular,
>>>> there's a few substantial disagreements over the bugs filed
>>>> by INRIA over oracle attacks, Rich Salz's specifics re
>>>> "recommendation" (and my and Vijay's proposals to deal with
>>>> it), and the like. While many of these are repeats of issues 
>>>> we've already discussed at length, it may be useful to
>>>> revisit in light of public comments.
>>>> Would people prefer to:
>>>> 1) Not do a call and keep discussing over mailing list,
>>>> revisiting the possibility of a telco for consensus after May
>>>> 20th?
>>>> 2) Do a call on the 19th to see if we can reach consensus
>>>> over telco?
>>>> 3) Not do a call and keep discussing over mailing list, try
>>>> to do a consensus over alternatives without any call over the
>>>> mailing list after May 20th?
>>>> cheers, harry
>>> I vote 3.
>>> ________________________________ This message and any
>>> attachments are intended solely for the addressees
>> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use
>> or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
>>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
>>> liable
>> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not
>> the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and
>> notify the sender.
>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
>>> transmission
>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages
>> caused by a transmitted virus
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 16:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:22 UTC