W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > January 2012

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

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 07:23:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4F02F35B.5090005@nokia.com>
To: "Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: ext Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "<public-xmlsec@w3.org>" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "<tlr@w3.org>" <tlr@w3.org>, "<public-webapps@w3.org>" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "<rigo@w3.org>" <rigo@w3.org>
On 12/29/11 11:18 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
> 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.

Are you saying that if the ECC PAG caused by RIM does not complete its 
work by March, the XML Sec WG will do the factoring as Marcos describes 
below?

-AB

>
> 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 Tuesday, 3 January 2012 12:24:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 January 2012 12:24:07 GMT