[Bug 25618] Extensibility: Offer spec-blessed ways to extend the algorithms and curves, rather than monkey-patching the spec

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618

Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #21 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> ---
Re-opening as per conf call discussion.

The current status seems to be as follows:
1) Several WG members dislike 'forward references', meaning references to
as-yet-unwritten 'other specifications': the only method of extension should be
the writing of new specification text which is either referenced from or
included in a 'base' or 'root' specification.
2) In such a model, the purpose of explicit extensibility points is to provided
implementors with information about what procedures may or may not be modified
by 'other specifications' - they are thereby directed to look for references to
other such specifications in the 'root' specification and implement those
requirements as well.
3) We presently only have one specification. We can modify anything we like in
this specification in future versions.

Combining (1) and (3) there is no possibility of 'monkey-patching' and
therefore no need for extension points. Anne seems to agree with this.

In future, we may decide we need additional specifications (e.g. for additional
elliptic curves). According to (1), we will need to modify our base
specification anyway, to include the references to these new curve
specifications. So, I see no reason why we could not include the extensibility
provisions then.

As I result, I suggest we just revert the changes related to extensibility.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 17:17:06 UTC