Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?
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. Did you read the message from Brian LaMacchia? If not, please read it, as it provides additional argument against this proposed change. 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. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: TLR, FH, XMLSecWG, On 12/21/11 6:03 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: Lets go back an look at the options we have to divorce Widgets/XML Dig Sig from Elliptic Curve: 1. Remove ECC from XML Dig Sig (in my opinion, the right thing to do™): pros: - frees both XML Dig Sig and Widgets Dig Sig to progress to REC at full speed. - begins a pattern of divorcing signature algorithms from processing (a good thing, which avoids this kind of mess!) cons: - new small spec needed - XML Dig Sig missing an important algorithm. Based on a quick scan of the XMLSec WG's mail archive [2], it appears that WG has known about potential IP issues related to Certicom/RIM and ECC for almost 3 years. As such, surely the WG has already discussed refactoring the XMLSig spec in a way like Marcos and I proposed. Would you please explain why the WG objects to such refactoring (or provide a link(s) to the related discussion)? As an FYI for the XMLSec WG members, note that another widget spec was blocked for two years because of a PAG [1] so it's quite understandable that having widgets-digsig blocked by YA PAG creates concerns for some WG members, especially given the ECC PAG Chair's pessimistic view [3] of a quick PAG resolution. -Thanks, AB [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/widgets-pag/pagreport.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=hdr-1-name=subjecthdr-1-query=certicomindex-grp=Public_FULLindex-type=ttype-index=public-xmlsec [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1540.html
Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?
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, frederick.hir...@nokia.com 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
Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21
On 2011-09-30 10:26, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote: On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/ Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by October 21. The reference for the Websocket Protocol (WSP) needs an updated author list. ... I note that http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Websockets-Comments-LC-29Sep2011 claims this was addressed but it was not. (In the meantime the reference additionally is out-of-date as RFC 6455 has been published a few days later, and not waiting with publishing the CR is a sort-of embarasssing #FAIL of W3C/IETF coordination). Best regards, Julian
Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?
On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 14:11, frederick.hir...@nokia.com 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
Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?
On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 16:18, frederick.hir...@nokia.com 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. Ok, March sounds reasonable. I'll mark it on my calendar to check back then. Apologies, here is the link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Dec/0026.html Yes, thank you… responded to that one: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Dec/0027.html
