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

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

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:07:46 +0000
To: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <w3c@marcosc.com>, <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, <tlr@w3.org>, <public-webapps@w3.org>, <rigo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2D0A751-E639-4BB2-8468-11F6DBFCBCB9@nokia.com>
No I am not. 

Marcos took my email that expressed my hopes and turned it into a hard deadline, which I do not agree with.

I suggest we let  Rigo/Thomas continue this thread.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> 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 13:08:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 January 2012 13:08:28 GMT