W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-identity@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Charter and the NetFlix UC

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:50:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4F3EAF94.50400@telia.com>
To: Ron Garret <ron@flownet.com>
CC: public-identity@w3.org
On 2012-02-17 20:35, Ron Garret wrote:
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-02-17 20:00, Ron Garret wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> It is possible that the solution to all our problems is simply to document signText.
>>
>> I just mentioned that there are a bunch of "standards" out there already.
> 
> And what does the existence of "a bunch of standards" have to do with what is wrong with signText?
> 
>> If I were to create a standard I would begin with researching these to see
>> if there is something worth stealing :-)
> 
> So, did you?  Is there?

It's called gap analysis and is a given task for a *proposer*.


> 
>> https://github.com/daviddahl/domcrypt/blob/master/demos/demo.js#L47
> 
> All I see is a bunch of uncommented Javascript code.  How that is intended to address the issue that signText is undocumented I do not understand.  I might be able to back out an API by reverse-engineering this code, but that would be missing the point rather badly.
> 
>> I don't know how window.mozCipher.pk.sign works but signText(v1996) uses X.509
>> certificates which I believe what is generally requested.
> 
> Personally, I think X.509 is part of the problem, not the solution.  But that is a different issue altogether.

> 
> rg
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 19:51:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 February 2012 19:51:29 GMT