Re: Extensibility reviews?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Harry Halpin <> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>> On 08/12/2014 05:04 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> I made some explicit suggestions as to extensibility points here:
>> But then the discussion got pulled into the registry thing again. I
>> think (hope) we've just about resolved that - or at least reduced
>> it to a more narrow open issue - so we could get back to the
>> concrete discussion of needed extensibility points.
> I am going to note it's common sense that we everyone submit bugs and
> reviews so there's no real reason to repeat common sense.
> However, if no-one gives the spec a thorough review we are *not*
> likely to get out of Last Call. I wanted to people to be aware of that
> and try to push on this in the next week rather than being completely
> consumed by the non-NIST ECC Curve debate, given that extensibility of
> the spec is more of blocking issue than the current non-NIST ECC Curve
> insofar as that would hold up extension specs.
> So Mark, if you could go through or anyone who is planning
> extensibility and give Ryan concrete suggestions, I'd be very grateful.

I thought I had given concrete suggestions in my comment linked above
- that's why I pointed to it. I can elaborate on those next week - or
if there is in principle agreement, do the editing myself.


>   cheers,
>       harry
>> ...Mark
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Ryan Sleevi <>
>> wrote:
>>> I think the idea of nominating "someone" to review is dangerous
>>> and not in line with the spirit of the W3C review.
>>> We need everyone to review AND file bugs for anything wonky they
>>> see. Just because we may or may not have a volunteer does not
>>> mean they will notice everything or things will be timely.
>>> So please, EVERYONE, review and file bugs. On Aug 12, 2014 5:57
>>> AM, "Harry Halpin" <> wrote:
>> Although the great debate over whether non-NIST curves should be
>> part of the main spec continues, I think a very practical task that
>> will block us getting out of CR will regardless is the
>> extensibility issue.
>> In particular, we need someone to go over the spec in detail to
>> look for extensibility points *in the text of the main spec*:
>> Any volunteers?
>> cheers, harry
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT6nu4AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqceMEP/2wbYOi7w5Bl41zpH9Ybb+2K
> G1IxocRkkIyvU5z8BFDRjaUxY8WZUap/E2j8l2PfSs+t/y2QzVnrVQUZ9DXmG3QN
> /8mrX3L7XdpFBG0GGk/0xo+YGMkfCtFVy800+aQwfkYevaQdJTc4vAE16U3xXbRI
> EjvzmwPDHnouO7MKEeTw3hC1d6py0t+ykIiQfchVKo5w+Wt1vAVL/wCs4uj7lkM5
> avk1OSoh9mr73EvUB5qGCneG8tcXOTPsT5W0MXq1UmplFrA1MH26Nph0TElY3Svx
> DsoNFaXrzvpLEFCRVjK0cqA+Wh4e4aZMa5Ii4GDQc9DIOPqv+Ujx+XDPIYzSp0GW
> oMF/P0nSU81vLM5/pzJmkrl6A0ZHSW9++OJDC24ZVMJ8iEIzr8NSDq3pLe7UmaDr
> 7Gvvvi5GHCxwJf1wPX1d7RtQG8NDNRN6X4U8OQeGvexiXz+7uWvA/lgsBWV2TcxP
> QO+FGKXUwu9lPlIz8073xkR7s/7xESpNtCUhgp9UKzaRj/meEj1WUIBLC+XLgPG2
> YjOwm+XPPvOtaYyuN/4Cp5SHlUy3GfhkWXaqh+EQgzV15yPSxkTqj3/jKD9g73ZB
> ZlaHkBvoVAHtdjgK4LQxX/3kpmzg3Fk27uN9VLMpiyCn6JckvsHh6Vxs4Zik/RaG
> nqL4bNtX3cK4CSvilFES
> =aW1o

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 21:04:44 UTC