[Bug 25618] Extensibility: Offer spec-blessed ways to extend the algorithms and curves, rather than monkey-patching the spec

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618

--- Comment #52 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> ---
(In reply to Harry Halpin from comment #50)
> Domenic,
> 
> I believe the issue you reference is *not* there should be no extension
> specs.
> 
> To be precise, the issue is: *Improve Errata Management*.
> 
> "For reasons of process and practice, W3C working groups do not necessarily
> issue errata in an expeditious fashion. We should fix the W3C Process so
> that it encourages groups to consistently issue errata. We should also
> explore Best Practices that groups could adopt to improve their handling of
> this issue."
> 
> I agree with that. I would of course be happy to add errata to the spec
> pointing to any extensions that have made through the W3C process. 
> 
> However, currently the Web Crypto spec does *not* have a
> mandatory-to-implement list of algorithms.
> 
> You have two options here:
> 
> 1) All algorithms are mandatory to implement. Thus, developers know exactly
> what algorithms to implement and there are no extensions. 
> 
> 2) Some or no algorithms are mandatory to implement. Then, there may be
> extensions.
> 
> Ryan has switched his position from 2) to 1). 
> 
> In particular, for the case of 1) there is no way to add Curve 25519 to the
> spec without having all browsers implement it and re-opening Last Call. 
> 
> So, you gotta chose - logically you can't have 2) and then not allow
> extension specs (and yes, extension specs could be mentioned in errata and
> be easily discoverable).
> 
> Microsoft has already chosen 2). I'd like to know what Google's position is,
> not you with a TAG hat or Ryan's personal position.

You are conflating two distinct issues. There is zero requirement to make
something normative in order to improve the process. 

That is, you're distinctly ignoring option 3

3) The spec (and errata, aka 'living spec') list the algorithms. New algorithms
are incorporated, via errata, into "The spec", without necessitating extension
specs.

The issue of normative and profiles, which we've discussed at length and you
very well know Google's position on, is addressed as an orthogonal and separate
concern.

Also, from a W3C staff representative, the tone is not appreciated, as has been
previously communicated privately but, unfortunately, continues to attempt to
dismiss the concerns Google is bringing you. Let's try to keep things positive
and productive, please.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 11 October 2014 01:23:24 UTC