- 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>
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 UTC