No I am not. Marcos took my email that expressed my hopes and turned it into a hard deadline, which I do not agree with.
I suggest we let Rigo/Thomas continue this thread. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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, 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 >>> >>> >>>
