[W3C Web Crypto WG] about progressing quickly on key format --> lets go for option 2)

Dear all,

As you know, Ryan mentioned that we have an interoperability problem with the key format and suggested 3 options to move forward [1].
I have been calling advices from implementers on the best way to move forward and called for feedbacks before today, and mentioned that in case no UA would move, we would go for option 2), keeping only the JWK format in our spec [2].
I heard several requests from users of the web crypto API [3] [4] [5] to go for option 1) (aka, working on clarification of all formats).

Provided the silence from Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla, my understanding is that except Google, no implementer is ready to invest more time into their web crypto API implementation. As such, it seems to me that option 2) stays the best way to progress, as it will have low impact on the spec and on the implementations.

Regards,
Virginie

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2015Dec/0001.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2015Dec/0025.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2015Dec/0026.html by Marc W from Netflix
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2015Dec/0028.html from Jason P from Monohm
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2015Dec/0029.html from Charles E

________________________________
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.