W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review and comments

From: Siva Narendra <siva@tyfone.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:14:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJhTYQypkBeqpwVh=wKtzxhgor+FK0_E2xcMedOLpXdNmE_VLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, public-web-security@w3.org, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Charles Engelke <w3c@engelke.com>
A minor correction - your statement should read "We had an F2F with
virtually unanimous support of some core ideas, then we had discussions and
finally we had the public dismissal by Google of the core idea (=support
for standard security hardware in legacy browsers), unless  when the the
standard security hardware runs FIDO"
On Mar 16, 2015 2:59 AM, "Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-03-12 15:54, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>
>> [gemalto representative hat on]
>>
>> gemalto supports to discuss in W3C the usage of the secure services based
>> on hardware or combination
>>
> > of hardware/software (e.g. secure element, trusted execution
> environement).
>
>> We suggest to gather the supporting companies and draft a a charter for a
>> Working Group or an Interest Group.
>> this synchronization can happen in public, preferably on the
>> public-web-security interest group mailing list
>>
> > (to avoid overloading the web crypto working group mailing list).
>
> We had an F2F, then we had discussions and finally we had the public
> dismissal
> by Google of the core idea (=support for legacy security hardware in
> browsers).
>
> That is, this activity is concluded and doesn't benefit from being rehashed
> unless somebody has a silver bullet to offer.
>
> Regards
> Anders
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Virginie
>> gemalto
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : Wendy Seltzer [wseltzer@w3.org]
>> Envoyé : mercredi 11 mars 2015 22:55
>> À : Siva Narendra; Harry Halpin
>> Cc : public-web-security@w3.org; public-webcrypto@w3.org; Charles
>> Engelke; GALINDO Virginie
>> Objet : Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review
>> and comments
>>
>> Hi Siva and all,
>>
>> To follow up on Harry's response, we have great interest in doing more
>> work on secure authentication building on the WebCrypto API. As its
>> Chair has expressed, the WebCrypto WG wants to complete its work with a
>> tight focus on the WebCrypto API and related deliverables.
>>
>> For my part, I look forward to supporting additional groups focused on
>> extending WebCrypto's work, whether based in FIDO or secure hardware.
>> Any member can propose work, and so long as there is interest and a path
>> to getting interoperable implementations, some members'
>> non-participation does not act as a veto.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> On 03/11/2015 05:32 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Harry.
>>>
>>> -Siva
>>>
>>>
>>> *--*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore |
>>> Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://www.tyfone.com>*
>>> *Voice: +1.661.412.2233*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/11/2015 09:59 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +adding Pub-Web-Security for continuity from the Workshop
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Harry. Few questions:
>>>>>
>>>>>     1. Does this mean "FIDO will not be implemented under this WG?"
>>>>>     2. Is the statement "All the web browser implementers do not want
>>>>> to
>>>>>     support hardware tokens or anything that is outside of
>>>>> cryptography in
>>>>>     within the scope of WG?" or "One browser vendors does not want to
>>>>>
>>>> support
>>>>
>>>>>     anything other than FIDO?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer should be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) FIDO will not be implemented under the Web Crypto Working Group, but
>>>> may be pursued in another WG.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Hardware token support, both in a manner consistent with a revised
>>>> Gemalto proposal that takes on board feedback like respect for
>>>> same-origin policy, should be pursued in another Working Group, but not
>>>> in the WebCrypto WG.
>>>>
>>>> Does that help?
>>>>
>>>> The real question now is what the shape and charter(s) of the new
>>>> Working Groups will be, along with associated time-frames.
>>>>
>>>> There have been formal Member submissions neither from the smartcard
>>>> vendors or FIDO, but lots of informal discussion. However, the workshop
>>>> did reach consensus that hardware token support should be part of the
>>>> Open Web Platform, and the W3C would like to follow this up with one or
>>>> more new Working Groups if the work does not match existing Working
>>>> Groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As the discussion in Web Crypto WG shows, it does not match at the time
>>>> being as the implementors want to focus on algorithm maintenance and
>>>> finishing version 1.0.
>>>>
>>>> If opinions have drastically changed since the workshop, we would like
>>>> to revisit that consensus via a survey of W3C members but we are hoping
>>>> there is still consensus and momentum.
>>>>
>>>>     cheers,
>>>>         harry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is important for the eco-system to know so we can determine if
>>>>> this
>>>>> work should be pursued inside W3C or outside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Siva
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *--*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore |
>>>>> Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://www.tyfone.com>*
>>>>> *Voice: +1.661.412.2233*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/11/2015 07:08 PM, Charles Engelke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm new to this WG and W3C in general, so I may be missing points on
>>>>>>> how this works. But until today that draft did include adding new use
>>>>>>> cases. Today that was revised to say "the Web Crypto WG will not
>>>>>>> adress any new use case others then the ones developed with the first
>>>>>>> version of the Web Crypto API."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did I miss the process that made this change?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was strong objections from members of the Working Group, in
>>>>>> particular implementers that are on public record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, while the W3C is still committed do finding an appropriate home
>>>>>> for these use-cases and associated standards, it will not be this
>>>>>> Working Group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a particular use-case and proposed technical solution that
>>>>>> you think would be acceptable to implementers, e-mail the Web Security
>>>>>> Interest Group at public-web-security@w3.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      cheers,
>>>>>>         harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:13 PM, GALINDO Virginie
>>>>>>> <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You will find here
>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG/webcryptonext_draft_charter the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the next Web Crypto WG charter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on the feedback on this mailing list, despite the long
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussions we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> had related to new features such as crypto service in secure element,
>>>>>>>> certificate management, authentication management, this charter only
>>>>>>>> adresses the maintenance of the Web Crypto API, and the creation of
>>>>>>>> extension for specific algorithms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I am expecting from working group participants now is the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> algorithms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they would like to see as extension of the Web Crypto API. This will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> help us
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to get a list of the extension we plan to adress in the framework of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specific working group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note that there are some discussions in AC forum about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> restricting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> activities of any WG that does not work under a valid charter. Our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> charter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will expire on the 31st of March, as such, we should try to get
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> consensus on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the new charter as soon as possible (or we will have to ask an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> extension to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> W3C director).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Virginie Galindo
>>>>>>>> gemalto
>>>>>>>> chair of the web crypto WG
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> addressees
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> disclosure,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> either whole or partial, is prohibited.
>>>>>>>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be
>>>>>>>> liable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
>>>>>>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> transmission
>>>>
>>>>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by a
>>>>
>>>>> transmitted virus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
>> Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
>>
>> ________________________________
>>   This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
>> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
>> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
>> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
>> transmitted virus.
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 11:14:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 March 2015 11:14:44 UTC