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

I think the concerns here are overblown. Certainly, I - and perhaps others
- have neglected this activity once we got sufficient interop to get some
real deployment experience (not necessarily a bad thing) but now it's time
to finish what we started. Not everyone wants to be on the bleeding edge
and many developers wait for a stable spec, with a good set of tests,
before diving in.

I don't think we can say - without further work - what the final
interoperable subset in the eventual PR should be. I would like to see a
full set of W3C tests, detailed enough to expose the interop problems and
then we can decide, collectively, which of those problems to solve and
which to leave (moving that functionality from the spec).

Is there anyone from W3C who could help us set up a test framework ? We'd
happy to port our tests to that as a starting point.

...Mark

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 01/21/2016 09:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Harry Halpin <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 years.
>
>
>
>