W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:18:55 +0000
To: <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, <tlr@w3.org>, <public-webapps@w3.org>, <rigo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <46080083-7E6C-4ED1-8097-410A5DC29AB9@nokia.com>
Marcos

My expectation is that we should have a PAG update on progress in the first week of January (hopefully) and a timeline like Rigo noted, with full resolution of the iPR issue by March - but only the PAG chair knows the reality since my expectations are as a "customer" of the PAG output. I entirely agree with you that "years" is not appropriate.

Apologies, here is the link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Dec/0026.html

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:22 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 14:11, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>> As I said before, this action is premature and we should let the PAG conclude (or at least wait for a status report) - the W3C Team may have more to say, but if this is on the order of weeks I do not think making work here to have apparent progress is useful. I have not seen a definitive statement from the ECC PAG chair.
> 
> That's fine. I guess as long as we don't have to wait one or two years (and I say that with a serious face!). 
> 
>> Did you read the message from Brian LaMacchia? If not, please read it, as it provides additional argument against this proposed change.
> 
> Pointer please?  
>> I am against revising XML Signature 1.1 until I understand the actual PAG status and until we have XML Security WG agreement. This endless email debate is not helpful and I'm not sure I understand the urgency related to widgets apart from a desire to mark it as complete.
> 
> The urgency is just that (getting it to Rec). 
> 
> But academically, the other arguments that were made are valid. Those were: 
>     * a /latest/ location 
>     * decupling algorithms, etc, from processing.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2011 16:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 December 2011 16:19:37 GMT