Re: WebCrypto edits on key material (Option 2)

On 01/18/2016 02:09 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     However, note that we can't simply have the spec sit around
>     forever in an un-finished state while we wait for UA implementers
>     to regain interest. We owe it to developers who read the spec to
>     have the spec reflect the underlying reality of implementation. If
>     there's features where we don't have interop, the path forward is
>     to remove those features, not wait indefinitely.
>
>     From your comments, it seems the other part of the spec that
>     should be removed is WorkerCrypto. Is that correct?
>
>
> Harry, I appreciate your kill it with fire approach of burning it all
> to the ground. Note that's what I suggested in my reply as *an*
> option, but not one I think is at all desirable. Note I also described
> how this could be accomplished - it won't be by removing, but by
> recreating from what is there, rather than removing from what isn't there.

Again, if you are willing to put in this work and give the W3C a
timeline, we're happy to work with that updated timeline. The preference
would be to have the spec ready for another PR by end of the current
charter (i.e. which ends end of March 2016),

How long do you think it will take you?

Again, I think MarkW is willing to help. However, if we aren't hearing
back from other UA implementers, we just have safely assume they  will
not change their underlying implementation, so the spec needs to reflect
features that have two or more vendors support. That does include most
of the core of the spec and quite a few of algorithms, as listed
earlier, although not the key import/export/generation outside JOSE.
>  
>
>     In terms of Safari, Safari has not removed their vendor prefix and
>     so is not included in *any* interop discussions yet. Hopefully
>     they'll catch up.
>
>
> Harry, I'm surprised to hear you say this because this isn't really
> how it's worked at all in the past for other WGs.

That is currently how it works, as this point was discussed with the
Director re WebCrypto in particular.
>  
>
>     We will not be able to ask for a new charter without going through
>     this step of pruning non-interoperable features from the spec.
>     We've been asking poitely for interest from browser vendors to
>     help with interop and fixing this for the last few months, but
>     given the lack of a response the way forward is simply to remove
>     non-interopable features from the spec. We can always return to
>     the spec if interest re-ignites. Again, a 'maintenance mode' will
>     allow us to update the spec as implementations move.
>
>
> Yes, and I spelled this out in the previous message.