[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

--- Comment #42 from Brian LaMacchia <bal@microsoft.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Watson from comment #40)
> (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #35)
> > 
> > As a theoretical, or practical matter?
> > 
> 
> Like I said, algorithm optionality is a whole other story ...
> 
> But, if we are being practical, would it work to simply maintain a list - in
> a small spec or on a WebCrypto WG web page - of WebCrypto specifications,
> which we would point to from the base spec (under the definition of 'other
> specifications').
> 
> This _surely_ solves the practical matter of discoverability, without
> invoking the presently-rather-heavy W3C specification update process for
> each new extension.

Note that this is essentially what the IETF does with the searchable RFC
database; new extension RFCs will have back-pointers to the RFCs they extend,
but no one expects to re-open and re-publish old RFCs to add forward pointers
to new RFCs that define extensions.  Imagine if we had to re-open PKIX Part 1
every time someone defined a new certificate extension...

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

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 16:25:22 UTC