Re: Extensibility reviews?

Hash: SHA1

On 08/12/2014 11:04 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Harry Halpin <>
>> wrote:
>>>> 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.

As co-editor, you can make those edits if yourself if you think they
are minor enough to not need WG level decisions.

Note that even if we had consensus over non-NIST ECC curves by
tomorrow, not having extensibility sorted in the main spec text would
almost certainly cause us *not* to get out of Last Call.

>> ...Mark
> 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)


Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 12:53:35 UTC