Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

On 12/4/18 2:58 PM, J.C. Jones wrote:
> If we mark all of the extensions as non-normative, it /seems/ like they 
> should move into some other document(s) of extensions then, as Mike 
> Jones advocated many moons ago.
> Isn't that the normal way these things work? That seems like more work 
> or delay than waiting for the FIDO/W3C talks to finish up.

I don't think that is necessary.  It is a familiar and comfortable path 
(perhaps because of things I've seen in the IETF), but I am equally 
comfortable having them remain in the common doc, and I think that is an 
option the director has left for us.

As has been pointed out, splitting the doc could add delay.  Given that, 
I'd rather leave the doc intact.

> J.C.
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:59 PM Christiaan Brand < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Tony, I believe that on the call most was in favor of the new
>     position: making things /optional /and *non-normative. *Since humans
>     are biased towards inaction, I believe that this email, the way it's
>     phrased, won't get us the answer we're looking for. I certainly for
>     one believe in the new, non-normative position. Can we turn this
>     question around and ask: /who would absolutely not like to see these
>     non-normative, and why not?/
>     /
>     /
>     Can we close this item out on tomorrow's call?
>     On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:10 PM Adam Langley <
>     <>> wrote:
>         On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:06 PM Anthony Nadalin
>         < <>> wrote:
>             The current consensus position within the working group was
>             to continue to push to keep the “extensions” as optional and
>             normative, due to delays on meeting the ongoing requirements
>             of the W3C for extensions an option was proposed at the last
>             WG call to mark the extensions as optional and
>             non-normative, but still publish the extensions as part of
>             the specification. I would estimate that we would be 2-3
>             weeks more of discussions with the W3C staff to complete the
>             answers they are looking for if we wanted to continue to
>             make the extensions as optional and normative. __ __
>             __ __
>             If WG member would like to change the current position from
>             as optional and normative to optional and non-normative
>             please respond to this message, or if you have other
>             suggestions please also respond.
>         We support moving forward with the extensions being optional and
>         non-normative. I believe this only affects the appid extension,
>         since that's the only one where we have multiple browser
>         implementations, but our position doesn't depend on that.
>         On the plus side, doing this eliminates a few weeks of expected
>         delay and the risk of a longer delay (esp given the coming
>         holidays). The downsides seem negligible as we don't believe
>         that the normative status has any impact on the browsers'
>         decision to implement or not implement something.
>         AGL

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:39:37 UTC