RE: Defaults: Getting concrete (round 2)

Ha, ha ! Right time for a F2F meeting to get consensus on that one, guys :)
Virginie


From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
Sent: mardi 23 avril 2013 16:25
To: Richard L. Barnes
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org; Wan-Teh Chang
Subject: Re: Defaults: Getting concrete (round 2)


On Apr 23, 2013 7:10 AM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com<mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com<mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com<mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> As I've argued above, the implementation complexity is trivial, random generation plus maybe a counter.  It's not clear to me how you think this is inconsistent, given that there are already defaults for some parameters already (e.g. tagLength).  The only difference is that these are reset per operation.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good point. This seems like an oversight that tagLength has a default
> >>> - it should be removed, to be consistent.
> >>
> >> Huh?  I thought we had agreed a few threads ago that it was sensible to have tagLength = 128 as a default.
> >>
> >> --Richard
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It was pointed out a few threads ago that = 0 was a bad default.
> >
> > The real issue was supplying a default at all.
>
>
> That latter issue is new to the discussion.
>
> In any case, summarily making a change like that without any WG discussion seems presumptuous of the editor.
>
> --Richard

We've been over this before.

The WD reflects WG consensus. The ED reflects the editors' attempt to build that through ongoing changes to reflect the nature of discussion in the WG. The ED does not reflect a consensus document, but is used to inform and evaluate the options on the path to consensus.

Regardless of your personal position, you have heard (repeatedly) from others about the danger of defaults. You have rightly pointed out that there is a spec bug in tagLength default of 0. The natural resolution to this is to remove the singular case of defaults within this document, rather than use it as a point to advocate for more.

This is the W3C work mode, Richard. There are no unilateral decisions being made, so there is no need to suggest otherwise.