Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] today's agenda, including resolution to exit Last Call

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  I hope that we devote enough time to the agenda item “Review by editors
> of the Web Crypto API status” for participants to be able to understand
> each significant change that has been made to the spec in the latest round
> of edits.  By my count, I’ve received 169 bugzilla messages in the past two
> weeks, and even when it’s my full time job to work on standards, that’s an
> impossible volume to ingest.
>

​Yes, sorry about that. I tried to follow a consistent process: propose
change -> assigned -> resolved for each bug, but this generates a lot of
bugzilla spam: multiple emails per bug.​


>
>
> The good news is that the editors making these changes know which were
> normative changes and which were clarifications.  Mark and Ryan, it would
> be really helpful if before the call, you could send a note to the working
> group with a one or two line summary of each normative change and a link to
> the section in the editor’s draft where the change is.  Then we could
> quickly walk down the list during the call, with people having your summary
> note to refer to during the discussion.
>

​Here you go:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpc7Q7o4nxoKjYT8Qx4MhueQ-rUuIIM53yp7miUuxnw/edit?usp=sharing,
"Recent Changes" tab.​

​...Mark​



>
>
> I really do appreciate that progress is being made.  But I also do want to
> also understand what each of the normative changes are before we decide
> whether we’re ready to advance the spec.
>
>
>
>                                                             Thank you,
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2014 9:27 AM
> *To:* GALINDO Virginie
> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi; Harry Halpin; public-webcrypto@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] today's agenda, including resolution
> to exit Last Call
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Actually, a good number of the recent changes were minor and / or things
> that do not strictly affect our CR decision.
>
>
>
> We will have a list to review on the call of those bugs that were
> CR-blocking and we can review their status / resolution on the call.
>
>
>
> I addressed a lot of other issues last week because on the one hand I feel
> we need to make some progress and on the other hand it was hard to see the
> Last Call -> CR "wood" for all the minor issue "trees".
>
>
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2014, at 9:14 AM, GALINDO Virginie <
> Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
>
>  Ryan,
>
> Re-revision of bugs, I’ll let the WG answer during the call.
>
> Re-decision binding, I was planning to have that 2 weeks waiting period,
> no worry.
>
> Regards,
>
> Virginie
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com <sleevi@google.com>]
> *Sent:* lundi 29 septembre 2014 18:09
> *To:* Harry Halpin
> *Cc:* public-webcrypto@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] today's agenda, including resolution
> to exit Last Call
>
>
>
> Just to be sure: you're asking if the WG has had a chance to review the 39
> changes made over the past week, some as recently as two days ago, to the
> level of binding resolution?
>
> I know we haven't.
>
> And Harry, please recall the Work Mode this WG adopted - and which you
> announced.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014May/0014.html
>
> "Yesterday, the Working Group at the telecon approved. RESOLUTION: Switch
> to a working mode that does only ad-hoc calls and a waiting period on the
> mailing list for objections to decisions."
>
> This is also reflected in the minutes:
> http://www.w3.org/2014/05/05-crypto-minutes.html
>
> That means that the discussion of LC on this call would be entirely
> non-binding, and for sake of review.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Also, note that if the WG feels that Last Call comments have been
> addressed, then over the next week I will formally request that the
> Web Crypto API goes to Last Call and do the work to ensure that we
> fulfill the requirements listed here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#candidate-rec
>
> In particular:
>
>     must show that the specification has met all Working Group
> requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been
> deferred,
>     must document changes to dependencies during the development of
> the specification,
>     must document how adequate implementation experience will be
> demonstrated,
>     must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least
> four weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex documents,
>     must show that the specification has received wide review, and
>     may identify features in the document as "at risk". These features
> may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a
> requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.
>
> The Director must announce the publication of a Candidate
> Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and must begin
> an Advisory Committee Review on the question of whether W3C should
> publish the specification as a W3C Recommendation.
>
>   cheers,
>      harry
>
>
>
> On 09/29/2014 04:46 PM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As announced, we will have a WG call today, dedicated to the Last
> > Call Exit for the Web Crypto API. The time of the call is @20:00
> > UTC.
> >
> > Proposed agenda is :
> >
> > -          Welcome
> >
> > -          Review by editors of the Web Crypto API status
> >
> > -          Decision to exit Last Call
> >
> > -          Next steps/milestones
> >
> > -          Web Crypto WG F2F meeting
> >
> > -          Web Crypto Next workshop outcome
> >
> > Talk to you in few hours, Virginie
> > ________________________________ 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.
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUKXXPAAoJEPgwUoSfMzqczF8P/RuJq90POZDFTFsagnYxIbKa
> XhtMb1wvyg52kdyeuZAWlqSbVGc30G5MGyeAbjrEP0i5F5Wjb6Aut2iEV/htNxlI
> SQJwtKS1qpV3E9DNxzFr197mL6yeylpTbRL2MYK9IDaPFsgxPq6VMDLfMqYj15s+
> /LR/PrtCxxKLybHDi4et34HYNaG2LYC4a0+wWFxZB9IZvYkFfUfFjS+I2t5xIXkS
> QjcirEeZkzOPyhwERHfAyDp2C6XRb5Wdx+nH663Ug0gKK6KekeNsMYHNWvak8j3W
> 0le+cRSrTnUzFI1Qqt/tYugOIN236eThzW66gY5idE+fAeVChciPGbfb9QrCFBTG
> FbzYGLzIcz0vE2TQ5J9K8JxC3hLjdIcdsQoxNfZeyYUIX1UdA2XoyZnoyYyN5BdE
> x5K4ZnJ9i8vQ5f8Fdt0V9jXhDRG6Jo6GYsNzGZFVsO20JVFmrvDJbqFAs5/mGV5f
> W7fGetStegjCk9hX2fXa6N9v0RsG5bAcyUU7WkVi8n/XXES1SwPFO8c2ic4TaXJP
> l1hndWjvpW51o+fJvzSbD4cNaBdwNW5wq6op33uUrp8UAPokXItG0Sr7EHzWwaWn
> r9HSs/tawbdEaT4QjbkBJZbv1F5Djkc98D4c+qi7Az3rkuAdLSAfuHFTi7shxcl0
> i/pqUsHCIS+61jeRI1qS
> =XnOW
> -----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.*
>
>