Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] minutes of 28th of Oct conf call

On 11/07/2013 10:22 AM, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
> OK but entering Last Call without a single reference to progressive 
> operations in the spec seems strange to me and can give arguments to 
> detractors.
>

Since Last Call lasts nearly 6 months and then there's an additional 6 
months for interop testing before Rec, I assume we'll have more clarity 
on the status of Streams before then. However, if Streams ends up being 
backwards-compatible, then deployment of even existing version of spec 
with streams is straightforward.

    cheers,
       harry

> Regards
>
> Aymeric
>
> Le 06/11/2013 21:37, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     As I mentioned in other posts, the Streams API is evolving fast
>>     right now (there is a new W3C version and a new WHATWG one), and
>>     indeed it's good to have a note in WebCrypto spec so it will
>>     support progressive operations when Streams are stable, as I
>>     wrote too ideally if a createStream method is feasible the spec
>>     should just mention that it supports Streams (notwithstanding
>>     next sentence).
>>
>>
>> As noted, specs reflect what is available. Especially was we move 
>> into Last Call, it's not appropriate to contain such references. As 
>> we've discussed before, it's certainly the intent that it's possible, 
>> and if/when Streams become viable, we'll update the spec to reflect that.
>>
>> Streams are certainly something we plan to take on after getting the 
>> current version out. But not only is there no need to include an 
>> informative note (since "Future changes in the Web may add additional 
>> APIs" is implicit in EVERY spec), but it would be inappropriate to 
>> reference in-progress/incomplete work.
>>
>> Again, to re-iterate, Streams is something we plan to tackle next. 
>> Your interest has been noted. But we can stop worrying about it for 
>> this version, as was previously decided by the WG.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>     reuse crypto operations: I suggested a stop/resume method for
>>     streams which is different from pause/unpause where resume does
>>     restart from a cloned state of the operation that receives stop
>>     and handle it as eof (ie cloning the crypto operation and closing
>>     the current operation)
>>
>>     Regards
>>
>>     Aymeric
>>
>>     Le 05/11/2013 09:27, GALINDO Virginie a écrit :
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     Please note that the minutes of our previous call are available
>>>     under http://www.w3.org/2013/10/28-crypto-minutes.html
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>
>>>     Virginie
>>>
>>>     Gemalto
>>>
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
>>>     addressees and may contain confidential information. Any
>>>     unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is
>>>     prohibited.
>>>     E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
>>>     liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you
>>>     are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it
>>>     and notify the sender.
>>>     Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
>>>     transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
>>>     for damages caused by a transmitted virus
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Peersm :http://www.peersm.com
>>     node-Tor :https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
>>     GitHub :https://www.github.com/Ayms
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Peersm :http://www.peersm.com
> node-Tor :https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
> GitHub :https://www.github.com/Ayms