Re: A modest proposal on extensibility - wrap up

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

On 10/14/2014 08:32 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> 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.

Here's the W3C Process on errata:
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#rec-modify

The WG needs to propose changes to appear on errata pages, and to
approve them through the full process before new features become
normative, That process can go quickly (more quickly under the recent
process revision), if the group can get consensus and review quickly.
On the plus side, you have royalty-free patent commitments on those
normative extensions.

- --Wendy

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________ 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.
> 

- -- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=pV2+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 01:09:45 UTC