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

Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] how to progress ?

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:36:25 -0500
Message-ID: <56A23059.40006@w3.org>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
CC: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>

On 01/21/2016 09:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>      If they don't, then we have no choice but to remove
>     non-interoperable parts of the spec, but I do not believe that is
>     necessary *if* we can give one more push at fixing bugs and the spec. 
> Harry,
> Strictly speaking, and perhaps this is where the disconnect is, that
> is not our only choice. We have a plentitude of choices available -
> including, for example, shutting the WG and publishing the spec as a
> Note, rechartering as a CG, kicking it over to the Web Incubator CG
> (or whatever it's called these days).
> I realize that you're personally invested in seeing something
> published, by this WG, but that's not the only choice available, nor,
> as I think we both agree, is it the desirable one.

Does anyone think that any of those choices are better than finishing
the work, and if so, why?

Everyone in the WG did promise the AC in the charter (including myself)
do want to see this work make progress and I'm not sure if putting it in
a CG or publishing it as a Note would actually increase progress. So,
the two options I have are in lieu of finishing the work given by the
charter within a time-frame of months rather than years.

Rather than recharter the WebCrypto WG in 'maintenance mode', we could
ask a CG to maintain the spec after it hit Rec. I think the depends on
how many new algorithms we expect to see normatively added or subtracted
in the future. If we are just adding algorithms, then it makes sense to
just edit the existing spec. A 're-write' as such that changes the
exiting spec could make more sense in the CG but again, that could take
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 13:36:30 UTC

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