[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 #44 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
> 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').

That would work just fine for addressing the issue I have.  I obviously can't
speak for Anne or Ryan.

> But I need a way to do it without violating S1

I don't see how you can, unless S1 doesn't really define behavior at all.

Either S1 says "you can add support for whatever", and then you're not
violating it no matter what you do.

Or S1 says "you can add support for things defined in extension specs" and then
you're violating it if you add stuff before said extension spec exists.

Again as a practical matter for the specific scenario you described UAs will
act as if S1 allowed them to add support for whatever, even if it actually says
you have to wait for an extension spec, because they will need to add support
before the lifecycle of the extension spec completes.  The extension spec will
then backfill and document existing practice so new UAs don't have to
reverse-engineer.  Therefore I don't have a strong opinion on whether in our
particular S1 we should take one or the other option.  I do care that once the
backfill happens it gets referenced.

> but no one expects to re-open and re-publish old RFCs to add forward pointers
> to new RFCs that define extensions.

This is a huge problem with RFCs.  It's very common for people to read and
implement an RFC without realizing that it's been obsoleted.

The fact that adding such a forward reference would involve any sort of concept
of "re-opening" is a process issue that just needs to be addressed.  Obsolete
things should get clearly marked obsolete, and "IETF doesn't do that" doesn't
mean the W3C shouldn't.

> Note that W3C has offered to host this web-page and spec BTW. 

I'm not sure what the argument is about, then... ;)

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

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 18:17:34 UTC