On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > I'm sorry you feel this is a "bikeshed" > That was supposed to be a joke. :) I thought your concerns were reasonable, and I think it's worth bringing them back to the group explicitly. > - the objective is to *avoid* future pointless nebulous discussions of the > kind "is X 'powerful' ?" in favor of a more concrete "does X require a > secure context ?". "Secure context" is a term we can own and define > rigorously, "powerful" is not. > I think you underestimate the ability of people to argue about terms. :) "Secure" is certainly something that folks can and will debate. See, for instance, the long, long threads discussing opportunistic encryption. Is that secure? I certainly have an opinion, and I know completely reasonable folks who completely disagree with me. > You could reasonably drop the qualifier "sufficiently" on the grounds that > we don't generally bother writing specs for things that are "insufficient" > and you could name the section "Features requiring secure contexts". > I think at some point we need to accept that we're defining a term. If it's the case that defining "sufficiently secure" is as likely to cause debate as defining "powerful feature", then let's leave things as they are, because "POWER" is a totally radical name for a spec. -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 16:04:13 UTC