Re: WebCrypto edits on key material (Option 2)

On 01/18/2016 03:05 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Again, we're not asking for the impossible :) 
>
>
> You are asking for the unreasonable, and it's surprising how unclear
> that is.
>
> You're asking for a spec to be edited without any involvement from
> other UAs, or active contributions, to try to figure out what
> everyone's implementing, and with no guarantee that what is
> implemented will be consistent, compatible, or appropriate for being
> spec'd.

We're asking that the editors remove everything that doesn't have two
interoperable implementations. That's the definition of exiting
Candidate Recommendation.

Of course, if browser vendors want to lay out a new plan for a spec
version, we'd like a time-line.
>  
>
>     However, we are asking for
>     a timeline. Given a conservative baseline assumption that no further
>     development will happen in existing UA, what do you think would be a
>     realistic time-line for you to make the edits that would make you
>     happy
>     with the spec and its interoperability?
>
>
> Without the continued and active involvement in other UAs to work
> towards a solution, there is no such timeline possible.
>
> With the active involvement of other UAs, you're asking me to predict
> the future issues and how long they will take to resolve, which is
> unbounded.
>
> Hopefully you can see why this continued push towards PR, without the
> active involvement towards resolution and without any commitment or
> ability to make changes from any other UA, is a return to the W3C of
> old (which lead to the WHATWG), rather than the supposed W3C of today. 
>


As stated earlier, we can re-charter in maintenance mode to allow a
'living spec', but its unreasonable to have the spec sit in CR for more
than a year if parts of the spec do not reflect underlying
implementations. Given there has been *no* movement on the spec for more
nearly a year, I don't think waiting for other UAs to get throw
resources at this spec makes sense, although we'd be happy to hear more
news. For example, Mozilla's latest email showing they will have PSS in
their nightly build means that algorithm should be kept.

Given there's been no movement on the spec for more than a year and
given that it's out of sync with existing implementations (although, not
by too much),  what is your proposed solution?

          cheers,
             harry