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

Marcos

You are replying beside the point everywhere.
Please read again what Leonard wrote about undated references. Leonard 
is right.
In ISO specs, undated references are forbidden. There is a team of 
people (called ITTF) whose job includes checking these things and 
bugging spec editors to fix them.
There is such a thing as certification. It is impossible to do if the 
spec is not fixed, including references.

What you are advocating is entirely counterproductive given the source 
of the discussion (= a PAG): if the spec has undated references, you 
cannot make sure it is royaltee-free. If the scope of one reference 
changes, there is a new risk. It is not only a problem of conformance 
testing.

Your vision of "fluid" standards is completely unmanageable in practice.
Regards
JC

On 19/12/11 12:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/11 20:31 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>>>
>>>> Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR PROBLEM that it makes it DIFFICULT/IMPOSSIBLE to do validation of any product that claims conformance to a standard – since it's impossible to determine which version of each undated reference they used.
>>> That's a FEATURE, not a "problem". Makes it inexcusable not to keep up with specs (same design built into HTML5, SVG, etc.).
>>
>>
>> JCD: How can you seriously state something like this ?
> Because it's a fact. Go and look at the specs.
>> It is so naive to think such hand waving on the spec will have any
>> effect on how businesses adopt it and use it.
> I'm not handwaving. I'm just pointing out a fact. And I don't see how you can call me naive, when it's you that hasn't even looked at the specs.
>
>>> See also how this de-cupling worked for XML:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0192.html
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0201.html
>>>
>>>> Additionally, it makes interoperability difficult/impossible since you can have multiple valid conforming implementations BUT they don't actually interoperate due to changes between revisions (and algo changes would be a good example of such an interoperability issue).
>>> I don't see how that is possible: if your spec does not conform to /latest/, then you are non-conforming.
>>
>>
>> JCD: No! It means the spec is broken.
>   No it's not.
>> Just because you decide on a new "definition" of conformance does not
>> mean it is shared by everyone.
> I didn't redefine conformance (or you don't know what conformance is?). Conformance: passing tests in a test suite. Tests represent conformance requirements in a specification. Test may be buggy. Spec may be buggy.
>
>
>> Regards
>> JC
>> (speaking as coordinator of conformance in all MPEG standards between
>> 1998 and 2006)
> Are you telling me that every test in the MPEG test suite was perfect and none have been changed after it became a standard? Or that no new tests needed to be added? Or that implementers found no issues with the MPEG specs?
>
>


-- 
JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144

Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 12:37:48 UTC