- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:26:08 +0200
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/11/2014 11:11 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> Dear all, Reading that discussion, I have a simple question. I
> heard on one side that we want to include easily new algorithms to
> the web crypto, but on the other side that we want to go through
> W3C IPR review for any new extension. Can someone explain how could
> we do that by maintaining a wiki on W3C website ? Where would the
> IPR review happen in that case ?
IPR review would happen through W3C process as usual.
The wiki would simply link to all other proposed crypto and include
its publication state. For example, it would allow people (see Trevor
Perrin) to propose extension algorithms also outside of the WG as
Editor's Drafts for consideration of the WG, and we'd link to that. If
it got accepted by the WG, then we'd link to it as a W3C Working Draft
and move it over to w3c.org space.
cheers,
harry
> Regards, virginie
>
>
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] Sent: lundi 11 août
> 2014 03:55 To: Harry Halpin Cc: Mark Watson; Mike Jones;
> public-webcrypto@w3.org Subject: Re: On Registries
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2014 6:43 PM, "Harry Halpin"
> <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>
>
> On 08/11/2014 03:26 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>> Considering no other WG has needed such a pointer, especially
>>>> all of the work in WebApps, I think such a pointer would be
>>>> counterproductive to the spirit of the spec process and
>>>> ill-advised in terms of spec maturity.
>
> What would you expect say, a developer who goes through the spec
> and notices that Curve25519 is not in the spec to do?
>
> Seems like a link back to where he could find a list of specs that
> the WG is working on in terms of algorithms could be useful to
> guide the developer to the right spec (ideally with test-suite that
> shows where it is or isn't implemented). Do you think there's an
> alternative?
>
>> Why ideally with a test suite? How is that any different from the
>> main spec linking to a test suite? Or having one in-built? Why
>> would algorithm extensions be expected to provide something the
>> main spec doesn't?
>
>
> As much as I know we all enjoy new bugs asking for new curves when
> people read the spec and notice their favorite curve missing :)
>
>
>> I would rather solve real problems than deal with hypothetical
>> strawmen.
>
>> Its the same situation as when a 'developer' reads the HTML5 spec
>> and notices there's nothing about filesystem access. Or notes
>> that there is no way to manipulate sound.
>
>> I have no objection to a wiki stating the PubStatus - WebApps has
>> successfully done that for some time. What I object to is trying
>> to shoehorn it into the spec somehow.
>
>> The maximal language that should be sufficient is "Additional
>> specifications may define other algorithms."
>
>> Or split up the algorithms from the main spec, so that its
>> obvious the relationship between the two.
>
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate your attempt to try to balance things, but
>>>> again, HTML5 has succeeded without a 'pointer to things that
>>>> define structured clone', or to 'specs which define
>>>> canvas.getContext', or to 'supplemental interfaces to the
>>>> Window interface', all of which are functionally equivalent
>>>> to any such extensibility discussion.
>
> Perhaps more analogous,
>
>> No. Its not really analogous to that at all, in that their
>> processing mechanisms - and effects on web developers - are
>> nothing like the aforementioned extension points of HTML5.
>
> HTML5 also has a wiki for link relationships [1] - see "Types
> defined as extensions in the microformats wiki existing-rel-values
> page with the status "proposed" or "ratified" may be used with the
> rel attribute on link, a, and area elements in accordance to the
> "Effect on..." field. [MFREL]" [1]. I suspect this is something
> less formal is what Mike was aiming at with a "registry" but I
> agree a formal registry will be difficult to maintain.
>
> Historically, XML-DSIG used URIs for algorithms to avoid the
> "registry" problem.
>
>> Great for XML-DSIG. Except its relevance to the Web and how the
>> Web works is virtually nonexistent.
>
>> Among other things, its not an API, nor exposed as such. Nor does
>> it affect things in the same way. The applicability of the
>> decisions made there are equally nonexistent (and more akin to
>> JOSE than HTML)
>
>
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/existing
> rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#linkTypes
>
>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2014 5:58 PM, "Harry Halpin"
>>>> <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would the best way forward here simply be a pointer from the
>>>> spec to the web-page of the WG near the "Algorithm" so that
>>>> authors can check to see the status of algorithms that may
>>>> not be not included the main spec, such as Curve25519?
>>>>
>>>> Then the WG homepage's list of "extension specs" (with a
>>>> clear sign of maturity in terms of Rec process) serves as a
>>>> "registry" (for lack of a better term).
>>>>
>>>> While a bit more heavyweight than the wiki I suggested
>>>> earlier, it would satisfy I think Ryan's concerns about
>>>> algorithms going through process without thorough discussion
>>>> and consensus from the UAs and WG, and also Mike's concerns
>>>> about where developers would go to find algorithms they don't
>>>> see in the spec and where UAs could ask for them.
>>>>
>>>> Sound reasonable? A quick sentence or two added to "18.1.
>>>> Registered algorithms" pointing back to the WG homepage would
>>>> then be enough.
>>>>
>>>> cheers, harry
>>>>
>>>> On 08/08/2014 07:26 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>>>>> WebCrypto is a Web API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no need for a registry for non-Web users. By
>>>>>>> definition, charter, and constituency, they do not
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All that matters, for standardization, is what UAs do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If no UA is involved, then having a name registry only
>>>>>>> serves to put the Web as second class. On Aug 7, 2014
>>>>>>> 10:24 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re missing that user agents don’t have to
>>>>>>>> implement registered algorithms. They’re free to
>>>>>>>> exercise their own best judgment. If they weren’t,
>>>>>>>> then you’d be on the side of having required
>>>>>>>> algorithms, which I know you’re not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the same way that registering new JWA algorithms
>>>>>>>> doesn’t hurt anything, registering new WebCrypto
>>>>>>>> algorithms doesn’t hurt anything. But it can help.
>>>>>>>> There’s nothing to fear there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>>> [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 10:18 PM *To:* Mike
>>>>>>>> Jones *Cc:* Mark Watson;
>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* RE: On Registries
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we want to talk hyperbole, suggesting the W3C is
>>>>>>>> akin to fearing openness is right up there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every algorithm in WebCrypto represents a distinct
>>>>>>>> capability for the Web. Thus is, by definition, an
>>>>>>>> API, no different than Canvas.getContext is an API (
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting.html#the-canvas-element
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What scares me is individual UAs arbitrarily and
>>>>>>>> unilaterally adding new capabilities to the web,
>>>>>>>> without discussion and consensus of other UAs, which
>>>>>>>> you have been so gung-ho on for so long and so
>>>>>>>> clearly, and which I can only hope is an individual
>>>>>>>> view and not current corporate thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the ONLY technical purpose a registry of
>>>>>>>> allowing arbitrary organizations to register new
>>>>>>>> algorithms serves. And expert review does NOT cut
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The registration of JWA/JWK affects no other
>>>>>>>> implementations, except for those that developers try
>>>>>>>> to exchange messages with. It is, by definition,
>>>>>>>> safe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exposing a new capability affects every User Agent
>>>>>>>> that ever hopes to visit that site, and thus should
>>>>>>>> absolutely be treated with fear and trembling,
>>>>>>>> because the Web does not remove capabilities lightly.
>>>>>>>> Suggesting such a site would "only affect/support IE"
>>>>>>>> or "Only affect/support Chrome", which is what such
>>>>>>>> arbitrary capability extensions mean, is the very
>>>>>>>> essence of a return to browser wars and extinction
>>>>>>>> through interoperability failure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:55 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why, exactly, was it OK for you to add algorithms
>>>>>>>> to JWA and JWK with a registry, when you would deny
>>>>>>>> the same ability to others for WebCrypto? Why does
>>>>>>>> openness and cooperation scare you so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>>> [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:48 PM *To:* Mike
>>>>>>>> Jones *Cc:* Mark Watson;
>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* RE: On Registries
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:38 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We’re not talking about adding APIs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, I thought we had agreement that this was an
>>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without that agreement, I suspect there is nothing
>>>>>>>> further of fruit to come of this discussion. The
>>>>>>>> points for why it is, unquestionably, an API have
>>>>>>>> been laid out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We’re talking about algorithms. That’s a much
>>>>>>>>> more restricted extension
>>>>>>>> space than the hypothetical one that you’re
>>>>>>>> pontificating about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cryptographers are more qualified to extend that
>>>>>>>>> space than the W3C, the
>>>>>>>> WHATWG, ECMA, or you or me. Let’s enable them do
>>>>>>>> it, irrespective of the organization in which they
>>>>>>>> write their spec.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cryptographers, as an abstract group/concept, are
>>>>>>>> the LEAST qualified of the groups you mentioned to
>>>>>>>> write browser APIs, to understand both the
>>>>>>>> limitations and the idioms of the platform, of the
>>>>>>>> risks and the guarantees, and of how the Web and
>>>>>>>> Standards work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With all due respect to all parties, it's like
>>>>>>>> suggesting someone who specializes in Computer Aided
>>>>>>>> Design to design a C API. Very different roles and
>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they do so, its no different than me writing a
>>>>>>>> spec for cold fusion and hiding it under my pillow,
>>>>>>>> because its just a piece of paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It means nothing without the involvement of UAs, to
>>>>>>>> implement, to agree on things like IPR, etc. Any UA
>>>>>>>> that went and implemented such extensions ad-hoc
>>>>>>>> would rightly be called out as breaking the web,
>>>>>>>> embracing, extending, and extinguishing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can only encourage you to reach out to your
>>>>>>>> counterparts on the IE team and in WebApps to
>>>>>>>> understand that none of our organizations (and yeah,
>>>>>>>> Moz, you too ;D) have their hands clean in these
>>>>>>>> matters, and that's precisely why we are trying so
>>>>>>>> hard to work together to ensure it does not happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A spec that blesses or condones such API extensions,
>>>>>>>> rather than condemning, is a step in the wrong
>>>>>>>> direction for standards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: Mike Jones Cc: Mark Watson;
>>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
Subject: RE: On Registries
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you name any organization or individual,
>>>>>>>>> outside the W3C, WHATWG,
>>>>>>>> and ECMA qualified to extend the web by adding new
>>>>>>>> APIs for UAs to implement?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can easily reach out to Travis L. and co on
>>>>>>>>> your side, or to your
>>>>>>>> legal team, to better understand Microsoft's view
>>>>>>>> against exactly that, with respect to participation
>>>>>>>> and standardization that occurs in the WHATWG. Or you
>>>>>>>> can look towards the involvement in TC39 to better
>>>>>>>> understand that there is very much a split, in both
>>>>>>>> organizations, as to which party is responsible for
>>>>>>>> developing and standardizing which aspects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the IETF, or any similar organization, would
>>>>>>>>> and can responsibly
>>>>>>>> develop JavaScript APIs used by millions of
>>>>>>>> developers, without the involvement of UAs, is not a
>>>>>>>> reality. The core constituency is and has always been
>>>>>>>> wherever the UAs are, since ultimately no standard,
>>>>>>>> draft, or spec is ever meaningful until UAs sit down
>>>>>>>> and implement it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the only registry that matters is what UAs do.
>>>>>>>>> Everything else is a
>>>>>>>> figment of a standards dream that doesn't exist, much
>>>>>>>> like the debacle of XHTML that lead to the formation
>>>>>>>> of the WHATWG to begin with.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Put differently, interop is the only registry that
>>>>>>>>> matters. And the W3C
>>>>>>>> (and WHATWG) is where interop happens. A registry
>>>>>>>> doesn't make interop happen - it just documents the
>>>>>>>> interop that already happened. So does a Wiki. Or a
>>>>>>>> PubStatus. Or WebPlatform.org, MDN, MSDN, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 9:20 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ryan, it seems that your primary motivation here
>>>>>>>>> is preventing things
>>>>>>>> that could go wrong. Mine is enabling things that
>>>>>>>> can go right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I find it hypocritical that you’ll happily use the
>>>>>>>>> IANA Registry to
>>>>>>>> extend JWK for use by WebCrypto in
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/#iana-section but
>>>>>>>> you’re unwilling to admit that enabling the IETF or
>>>>>>>> others to similarly extend WebCrypto would likewise
>>>>>>>> be a good thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The IETF is happy to have others extend the
>>>>>>>>> Internet in a principled
>>>>>>>> fashion. Why are you so afraid to let the IETF or
>>>>>>>> others extend the Web in a similarly principled
>>>>>>>> fashion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JWK is stronger because WebCrypto can extend it.
>>>>>>>>> It’s better for
>>>>>>>> WebCrypto, better for JOSE, and better for the
>>>>>>>> Internet. WebCrypto and the Web would be similarly
>>>>>>>> stronger if others outside the W3C could extend it.
>>>>>>>> So let’s make it happen!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’ll be happy continue to advocate that it’s more
>>>>>>>>> important to WebCrypto
>>>>>>>> and the W3C to enable responsible extensions by all,
>>>>>>>> even though it may scare you, than to maintain a
>>>>>>>> closed spec and closed process that only one
>>>>>>>> organization can extend. I believe that openness in
>>>>>>>> this respect is “on the right side of history”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:12 PM To: Mike
>>>>>>>>> Jones Cc: Mark Watson;
>>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: On Registries
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 7:56 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Replies about the W3C’s positive role in
>>>>>>>>>> ensuring quality of algorithm
>>>>>>>> registry entries inline at the end of this message…
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Ryan Sleevi
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:sleevi@google.com<mailto:sleevi@google.com>]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 7:44 PM To: Mike
>>>>>>>>>> Jones Cc: Mark Watson;
>>>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: On Registries
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2014 7:31 PM, "Mike Jones"
>>>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your insightful reply, Mark. A few
>>>>>>>>>>> comments inline below…
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Mark Watson
>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 6:02 PM To:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Jones Cc: Ryan Sleevi;
>>>>>>>>>>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: On Registries
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 7, 2014, Mike Jones
>>>>>>>>>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simple. In the first case, the algorithm is a
>>>>>>>>>>> data value. In the
>>>>>>>> second case, it’s encoded in an API. Data values
>>>>>>>> are easily extensible. APIs are not. That’s why
>>>>>>>> extending the space of algorithms by registering new
>>>>>>>> data values makes a world of sense. Expending the
>>>>>>>> algorithms by adding new APIs for each would be
>>>>>>>> clunky, procedurally slow, and mostly unworkable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think what Ryan is saying is that it should
>>>>>>>>>>> be no easier to add an
>>>>>>>> algorithm than it is to add a new API (or, more
>>>>>>>> strongly, that a new algorithm *is* a new API and
>>>>>>>> _therefore_ should be no easier to add).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe you’ve accurately identified the
>>>>>>>>>>> heart of the disagreement
>>>>>>>> here, Mark.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IF we decided that it should be easier than
>>>>>>>>>>> this to add new
>>>>>>>> algorithms and especially if we decided that groups
>>>>>>>> other than W3C Working Groups should be able to do
>>>>>>>> so, then a registry makes sense as a mechanism to
>>>>>>>> coordinate that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise (which is where we are now), then
>>>>>>>>>>> the definitive list of
>>>>>>>> algorithms is to be found in the sum total of the
>>>>>>>> output of the W3C WebCrypto Working Group and nowhere
>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we decide that he definitive list of
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms is only to be
>>>>>>>> produced by the W3C WebCrypto Working Group, I
>>>>>>>> believe that would be a significant missed
>>>>>>>> opportunity. The WebCrypto API is an exercise in
>>>>>>>> packaging algorithms developed by cryptographers for
>>>>>>>> use by Web developers, just like JOSE is. Neither
>>>>>>>> working group’s primary expertise is cryptography.
>>>>>>>> Cryptographers should be the ones to write the
>>>>>>>> extensions specs defining new algorithms – not us.
>>>>>>>> Some of those may occur in the W3C but some may occur
>>>>>>>> in the IETF and some may be individual drafts by
>>>>>>>> people such as Dan Bernstein, David McGrew, and Brian
>>>>>>>> LaMacchia.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We would be doing the WebCrypto API and the Web
>>>>>>>>>>> a significant
>>>>>>>> disservice if we don’t enable people other than us
>>>>>>>> to define and register new algorithms for use with
>>>>>>>> WebCrypto. We should be humble enough to recognize
>>>>>>>> that defining new crypto algorithms is not our
>>>>>>>> expertise and let those who are experts define them
>>>>>>>> for use with our spec, no matter where they choose to
>>>>>>>> do the work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with the sentiment that anyone should be
>>>>>>>>>> able to write
>>>>>>>> definitions for algorithms, and am excited to see
>>>>>>>> Trevor's Curve25519 draft.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the sentiment that it should
>>>>>>>>>> happen outside the W3C.
>>>>>>>> To do so is to return to the browser wars, where
>>>>>>>> both Microsoft and Mozilla, though well motivated,
>>>>>>>> wrecked great harm through "embrace, extend,
>>>>>>>> extinguish" and the introduction at large of new
>>>>>>>> vendor-specific APIs, often without specs (or without
>>>>>>>> free licensing, or with great patent encumbrance, or
>>>>>>>> through active hostility towards other UAs efforts to
>>>>>>>> interop)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The W3C (and the WHATWG) exist to help prevent
>>>>>>>>>> that terrible harm from
>>>>>>>> ever happening again. The way to do that is by
>>>>>>>> having multiple UAs coordinate and ship features
>>>>>>>> responsibly, to agree on specifications, and to avoid
>>>>>>>> vendor lock-in.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of this group's cryptographic
>>>>>>>>>> expertise, which i agree is
>>>>>>>> unfortunately lacking, we are filled with UA
>>>>>>>> implementors, the sole entities with the power to
>>>>>>>> make - or break - the web; For developers, for other
>>>>>>>> UA implementors, and most importantly, for users, for
>>>>>>>> this generation of the web and those to come. For
>>>>>>>> that, there can and should be no alternative - we
>>>>>>>> must agree, as UAs, and the W3C exists precisely to
>>>>>>>> support and guide that agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suggesting that using a responsibly managed
>>>>>>>>>> registry would be a return
>>>>>>>> to the “browser wars” or that features would be
>>>>>>>> shipped without specifications is hyperbole. I’m
>>>>>>>> only advocating a specification-required registry
>>>>>>>> with expert review. The W3C would appoint the
>>>>>>>> appropriate experts to ensure that the specifications
>>>>>>>> registering algorithms are clear and well-written and
>>>>>>>> meet any other criteria decided by the W3C. The W3C
>>>>>>>> can ensure the quality of registered algorithms
>>>>>>>> without having to write all the drafts itself. It’s
>>>>>>>> unnecessary and detrimental hubris to think that
>>>>>>>> we’re the only ones qualified to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expert Review is exactly the detrimental sort of
>>>>>>>>> stuff that got us into
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The W3C REC track is exactly that. A path for
>>>>>>>>> _anyone_ to write specs,
>>>>>>>> submit them to the WG, for UAs and users to agree in
>>>>>>>> interest, and to develop and publish such
>>>>>>>> specifications with clear views on patents,
>>>>>>>> interoperability, and applicability to the web.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No single expert is qualified to reflect consensus
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder UA community, which is a
>>>>>>>> fundamental and nonnegotiable portion of any Web
>>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if we talk a panel of experts, who are they?
>>>>>>>>> Well, we probably want
>>>>>>>> some UAs, those are essential. We probably need some
>>>>>>>> cryptographers, since security is key. We should hear
>>>>>>>> from developers, since this matters to them. And we
>>>>>>>> should probably have a few representatives from the
>>>>>>>> public.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And suddenly, you have an Expert Panel that is
>>>>>>>>> indistinguishable in form
>>>>>>>> or function from a WG. And without having to reinvent
>>>>>>>> a process for that review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any solution that fails to go through the
>>>>>>>>> W3C/WHATWG process is, in
>>>>>>>> spirit and effect, a return to the browser wars -
>>>>>>>> including the designation of sole experts (which the
>>>>>>>> W3C also has readily available if this WG should ever
>>>>>>>> need - the TAG and AB)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> ________________________________ 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.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=8kdP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 10:26:19 UTC