You're talking about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep/0186.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep... , ri

You're talking about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep/0186.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep... , right? I replied, and also tried to clarify in a follow-up message on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep/0190.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep... As far as "arrange to get people in a room" - that's exactly what we're trying to do, and exactly why we solicit feedback. While the Hacker News engagement is great, and so is Twitter, I suspect that I'm missing 90% of the discussion because nobody is sending mail to where we asked - public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org - and so no one in the WG is having a chance to engage and discuss. Again, we're not trying to design a cryptosystem here, as far as a "secure messaging protocol" goes, least of all because no one who submitted feedback during the months of time spent when it was a W3C Community Group and chartering into an actual WG did anyone actually give a use case where their needs would be met with such an API. Definitely, the best place for concern and criticism will be the mailing list, and that's the whole point of the wide canvas and call for feedback.