Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:16:38 +0200
Hi,
On 13 Nov 2023, at 17:30, Ran Regev via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 17:19 Joshua Berne <berne_at_[hidden]> wrote:SG15 and SG23 both discussed P2947 last week. Has there been new
information published to indicate that it needs to be revisited?
I'm not aware of such information. I have read the minutes from both discussions.
When the authors of P2947 approached SG21 initially, I deferred to SG23 and said that SG21 will look at this if (and only if) SG23 considers this a security issue that needs to be fixed in the language spec. SG23 clearly does not consider this to be a security issue that needs to be fixed in the language spec. They deferred it to SG15, who do not consider this to be an issue that needs to be fixed in the language spec either. So they deferred it to us, which means the cycle is complete and we're back where we started.
I think it should at least be discussed within SG21 as SG15 suggested:
Sure, if the authors insist, SG21 can discuss this paper. But honestly — and I mean this with all due respect — I don't think such a discussion would be a particularly good use of anybody's time.
SG21 does not specialise in security issues; nor do we specialise in tooling issues. We do language design. If SG23 does not consider this to be a security issue that needs to be fixed in the language spec, and SG15 does not consider this to be a tooling issue that needs to be fixed in the language spec, then all that's left for us to do in SG21 is to discuss whether the proposed change nevertheless makes sense from a language design perspective. I have a pretty good idea where such a discussion would go.
Please let me know if you disagree with the above!
Cheers,
Timur
Received on 2023-11-13 19:16:44