W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > January 2016

Re: WebCrypto edits on key material (Option 2)

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:33:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaZFjjNWiSkRgCrb0ove+5sXEj9Nq7vsBrrs2xH0E9cXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
On Jan 18, 2016 3:36 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>

> New features that need interop that aren't in the CR version of the spec
just go into WebCrypto 1.1, which I'm happy to recharter - but we have to
show we have some success with WebCrypto 1.0  I'd like that to happen.

And I do not believe for a second we can reasonably argue we have had
success. Perhaps this is the cause for the disconnect - you are unaware of
or unwilling to recognize the significance of the issues.

> You need to scope the parts you don't think are interoperable. In
particular, non-JOSE key formats and Workers have been brought up. Do you
have anything else in mind?

Harry, since you have repeatedly (and continue to) suggest it is easy to
spec the interoperable bits, perhaps you should make an effort. You will,
for example, find the lack of interoperability for ECC. Or discover the
lack of interoperability forhandling of BigIntegers or JWKs, which, by your
logic, necessitates removing all key import and export for asymmetric keys.

I am not going to engage with you on a point by point matter of
compatibility issues, because you have consistently refused to acknowledge
the systemic issues at play here. You cannot reasonably or in good faith
suggest the WG is in a state to progress to PR, given the challenges for
the past few months, nor can you argue reasonably that the WG should be
rechartered given the lack of involvement. This should be painfully
obvious, and it is somewhat frustrating that you consistently ignore these
issues and attempt to reduce them into something that fits your goals.

>  However, if we continue with the current state of affairs (i.e. no
further UA progress), then the Working Group will expire at end t arof
March and we'll be stuck with an out of date spec with features that are
non-interoperable, and the charter will not be renewed for further work.
That's probably the worst of all worlds :(
>

I disagree. That's the most honest and accurate of worlds, and reflects
what UAs are currently willing to commit to. If what is pushed out in PR
fails to reflect the status of what is implemented (however incompatible)
and fails to reflect the direction (if any), then it is even worse than no
spec.
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 00:33:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:03 UTC