- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:58:30 -0800
- To: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com> wrote: > Harry: > > I just watched this: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkp0yo7Q0Ow > > Way to go! What a good talk. I hope it will elicit some feedback from > the audience. I have the uncomfortable feeling that when I've > solicited feedback from people so far, that their feedback has not > been put to good use. ☹ This makes me reluctant to approach more > cryptographers and ask them to contribute. I'm not sure what you mean here. The feedback was extensively discussed, a response was provided, and even more discussion was had about who and what this API was trying to target. In particular, we had quite a bit of discussion (and dissent, and eventually consensus) on the nature of algorithms and the API. It was repeatedly explained (on the list and on the call) why approaches like custom namespaces or error logs are not ideal, and about how the possible use cases exist. > > Maybe we could put their feedback to "good use", even if we aren't > going to actually *take their advice*, by posting their feedback on a > web page and our response to it, or something. Something semi-formal > that gives the impression to them and to the public that we *heard > them*. Isn't this exactly what the mailing list archives are intended to do? The level of formalism you propose is not something I've seen practiced in other working groups, so I'm trying to understand the motivation. > > I'm mainly thinking of the letter from Somorovsky, Paterson, Jager: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep/0186.html > > Regards, > > Zooko >
Received on Sunday, 30 December 2012 21:58:57 UTC