On 12/29/11 11:18 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
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.
Are you saying that if the ECC PAG caused by RIM does not complete its
work by March, the XML Sec WG will do the factoring as Marcos describes
below?
-AB
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
