RE: A modest proposal on extensibility - wrap up

W3C experts – could you tell us practically what it takes to update the errata page for a spec, both process wise and timeline wise?  Does it require a working group action or is it just someone recording the contents of an e-mailed request on the web page?  Is there a review process or are proposed errata simply recorded as they come in?  I’d like to get some sense of how easy/hard this will be to do in practice and who will have the rights to update the page.

Responding to Mark’s comments, I could imagine someone inventing a new key format, so I’d think that KeyFormat should be a defined extension point. As much as I’m fond of JWK, it may not be the last key format ever.  I’m fine not having usages be an extension point.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:21 AM
To: GALINDO Virginie
Cc: Harry Halpin; Mike Jones; Richard Barnes; public-webcrypto@w3.org
Subject: Re: A modest proposal on extensibility - wrap up

Virginie,

Just to re-iterate the two minor points I made in response to Richard's proposal:

(1) I don't believe we have a need or desire for additional values of the KeyFormat enum or the usages strings
(2) The text change to handle the recognized values of other things, with extensibility, is a little more involved that Richard says - to deal for example with parameterized hash algorithms - but this should be ok.

I could do the editing for this tomorrow.

...Mark

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com<mailto:Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

It looks like we are in a good direction to move forward on extensibility/errata. Thanks Richard for making that proposal.

After discussing with Harry and Wendy, we came to the slightly modified proposal. We were thinking about submitting it as part of the proposed resolution to close the extensibility bug.

** process for extending W3C specification with new algorithms **

1. Wherever a string/enum value is defined, insert something like the following:
1.1. This specification defines values X, Y, Z
1.2. Implementations MAY support other values
1.3. When an extension is made to add a value, a reference should be added to the "Extensions" section

2. Wherever a string/enum value is used as a branch point, insert something like the following:
2.1. If X... If Y... If Z...
2.2. If another recognized value, process according to that value 2.3. If an unrecognized value, raise an NotSupportedError (or TypeError for
enums)

3. Add an "Extensions" section as errata to the specification where links can be added to point to extension.

**

FYI, errata description in W3C can be found under http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/errata


Hope this is agreeable to you.
Virginie



-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>]
Sent: lundi 13 octobre 2014 15:39
To: Mike Jones; Mark Watson; Richard Barnes
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A modest proposal on extensibility

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 10/12/2014 09:02 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> It's the extra layer of indirection that makes them completely
> different and actually solves the problem of being able to list
> extensions without modifying the base spec.  If they're equivalent to
> you and others, then you should have no problem with the Web page
> approach, and it would satisfy Microsoft's extensibility goals.  So
> let's do that!
>

The list of extensibility algorithms is vetted by the W3C WG and in an official errata.

I'm also happy to have the W3C/WG maintain a web-page with proposed extensions that have not yet made it to the official errata. That is at least good house-keeping as a pointer to proposals that have not gone through the WG.

I think either of these solves Boris' issue but I think Ryan and Richard prefer having the errata as official.

I think there is no huge difference in practice. Ryan's argument, as I understand it, is that keeping any forward references in an errata makes it easier for implementers to know what is really out there in terms of algorithms.

I would just like to close this while keeping extensibility for curves like Curve25519 that aren't in main spec.


> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>]
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 10:03 AM To:
> Mike Jones; Mark Watson; Richard Barnes Cc:
> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> Subject: Re: A modest proposal on
> extensibility
>
>
>
> On 10/11/2014 06:40 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> I’d been travelling internationally and so am just now getting to
>> this.  The problem with Richard’s proposal is that updating the
>> “Extensions” section he proposed would still require updating the
>> specification for every extension – defeating the purpose.  A slight
>> variant of it could work however.  If the “Extensions”
>> section instead pointed to a Web page maintained by the W3C that was
>> updated every time that an extension was defined, then only the Web
>> page would have to be updated and not the base spec.
>> That would achieve the purpose of being able to create extensions
>> without modifying the base spec *and* provide an actionable way for
>> implementers to locate extensions.
>
>
> I see "references to extensions in errata" as just one layer of
> indirection less than "link to web-page with references in errata".
> Thus, they are functionally equivalent in my book, with the only point
> that it's a bit harder to update errata (but hopefully W3C will make
> this easier in the near-term future) but also easier for readers of
> the spec to find the references.
>
>> As for the other topic of extending key formats, I believe that we
>> already know that this is necessary.  For instance, 25519 keys are
>> expressed in a different format than NIST EC keys.  That alone is
>> enough of an existence proof to demonstrate that we must enable key
>> format extensions.
>
>> -- Mike
>
>> From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>] Sent: Friday, October
>> 10, 2014 2:09 PM To: Richard Barnes Cc: Harry Halpin;
>> public-webcrypto@w3.org<mailto:public-webcrypto@w3.org> Subject: Re: A modest proposal on
>> extensibility
>
>
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Richard Barnes
>> <rlb@ipv.sx<mailto:rlb@ipv.sx<mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>>> wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at
>> 4:34 PM, Mark Watson
>> <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com><mailto:watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>> wrote: This seems
>> fine, except: - we have discussed key format and agreed we do not
>> want / need extensibility for this - no one has suggested we need an
>> extensibility point for usages
>
>> I agree that key formats are low priority for extension, but I'm a
>> little surprised that we would forego it entirely.  I guess it just
>> means that extending the set would need a spec update (to add
>> extensibility), which seems OK.
>
>> I'd suggest that we include a table which lists all the WebCrypto
>> algorithms and for each one lists the specification(s) that define
>> that algorithm. The initial value for the existing algorithms will be
>> 'This specification' but we will add values - through the errata
>> process - as we write extension specifications.
>
>> The definition of 'other specifications' will be revised to be
>> restricted to those specifications listed in the table.
>
>> This seems fine to me.
>
>> The only remaining issue is whether we should arrange the procedures
>> for import / export of keys for algorithms parameterized by a hash
>> function such they it does not appear that import / export for the
>> existing cases can be overridden, even though we constrain extensions
>> to definition of new hash algorithm values in prose.
>
>> That was what I was trying to get at with the proposed branch
>> structure: -- One of the hash functions defined in this spec...
>> -- Another one you recognize... -- Error
>
>> It's not quite as simple as that in the specification text as we want
>> to defer to the extension specification exactly how the new hash
>> function is signalled, including the possibility that it is
>> parameterized. But still, we can do this.
>
>> ...Mark
>
>
>> --Richard
>
>
>> ...Mark
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Harry Halpin
>>> <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org><mailto:hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>>> On 10/10/2014 05:27 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: Talking to a few
>>>>> folks off-list, it seems like the extensibility discussion has
>>>>> gotten a bit muddled.  The goal of this message is to try to
>>>>> focus/clarify with a specific proposal. It sounds like the general
>>>>> desiderata people have
>>>>> are: 1. To make it possible to add new values for strings/enums
>>>>> without major spec surgery 2. To make it easy for developers to
>>>>> find extensions
>>>>>
>>>>> To that end, I would like to propose a way forward for
>>>>> extensibility:
>>>>>
>>>>> <proposed-plan>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Wherever a string/enum value is defined, insert something like
>>>>> the following: 1.1. This specification defines values X, Y, Z 1.2.
>>>>> Implementations MAY support other values 1.3. When an extension is
>>>>> made to add a value, a reference should be added to the
>>>>> "Extensions" section
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Wherever a string/enum value is used as a branch point, insert
>>>>> something like the following: 2.1. If X... If Y...
>>>>> If Z... 2.2. If another recognized value, process according to
>>>>> that value 2.3. If an unrecognized value, raise an
>>>>> NotSupportedError (or TypeError for enums)
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Add an "Extensions" section to the bottom of the spec, where
>>>>> links can be added to point to extension specs.
>
>> As noted on Bugzilla, as long as Extensions are in Errata, that's
>> fine by W3C Process I believe.
>
>> cheers, harry
>
>>>>>
>>>>> </proposed-plan>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that overall approach seem agreeable to people?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Richard
>>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=nUWf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

________________________________
 This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.