Marcos My expectation is that we should have a PAG update on progress in the first week of January (hopefully) and a timeline like Rigo noted, with full resolution of the iPR issue by March - but only the PAG chair knows the reality since my expectations are as a "customer" of the PAG output. I entirely agree with you that "years" is not appropriate.
Apologies, here is the link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Dec/0026.html regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:22 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 14:11, [email protected] wrote: > >> As I said before, this action is premature and we should let the PAG >> conclude (or at least wait for a status report) - the W3C Team may have more >> to say, but if this is on the order of weeks I do not think making work here >> to have apparent progress is useful. I have not seen a definitive statement >> from the ECC PAG chair. > > That's fine. I guess as long as we don't have to wait one or two years (and I > say that with a serious face!). > >> Did you read the message from Brian LaMacchia? If not, please read it, as it >> provides additional argument against this proposed change. > > Pointer please? >> I am against revising XML Signature 1.1 until I understand the actual PAG >> status and until we have XML Security WG agreement. This endless email >> debate is not helpful and I'm not sure I understand the urgency related to >> widgets apart from a desire to mark it as complete. > > The urgency is just that (getting it to Rec). > > But academically, the other arguments that were made are valid. Those were: > * a /latest/ location > * decupling algorithms, etc, from processing. > > > -- > Marcos Caceres > http://datadriven.com.au > > >
