- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:53:23 +0200
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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 <hhalpin@w3.org> >> wrote: >> > > >>>> On 08/12/2014 05:04 PM, Mark Watson wrote: I made some >>>> explicit suggestions as to extensibility points here: >>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618#c9 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> <sleevi@google.com> 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" <hhalpin@w3.org> 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*: >>>> >>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618 >>>> >>>> Any volunteers? >>>> >>>> cheers, harry >>>> >>>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT61/DAAoJEPgwUoSfMzqc4poQAJelvIZQomDeYbayQMYarsnO TT9OmU+HdrGr6VdlYGSCiUEb8P1kOx3oRR+/FH1zVf+99Yubvvx5ldY2MtX3iRYM FG/faNUSgCNz9qE+0JTXONy4dgNGdiBni1FgmnKUoOAKNr3byWCfAtZbiYL/Fvb3 LP3HsLfsKAYFGUBYacsX+49U3KCsy/Gc36F1wr8HyF2EhazWKHASWi0G3EX1iWMh TcbsmXf/VNyTxB1OeS9bQAT42Xpzm00t3zXtoDUUAY+/AcG73d1n6HMyY4WDKU2N uIBavjzjjOjxH10H9vGM1fQiQAuE+sCGE9uR0kIwlBJKn9SNZkBi9Myc1PBJBvZI 3u8+NRsLzgLphfesleq5Jlm0ulvJji3vD3pL9BFHcc38CiWoG/dujVXDP/AEI1go z1FXNaDUXq0R2xvvoS3VGFBGoLcfQMIXm1xRr21t5+2DxvA5+8X9fyPcabYhOd10 ZlTCBAestHyaAisqm/SakqnZwHcb9vZHs2E32COl1rZDEFd2hpeYkkYtTQcq8uQx +bxSVm8aBsk1QfKxOnxWSo4I6PyDOM5MKBDZdCzOtDf8Q1Wmr5Nzujf4VI7uMFUW H1iPWa0O9Yz+1TSRBmps4FvnBi0RUNQr9OG5/VAgLmh9eabVPbyxtEUUahTlv5fs tBTgx8Ht7mLsTRQrgVpP =sNtM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 12:53:35 UTC