W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [Moderator Action] Missing items in KeyUsage

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:54:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdDw33ko7vf2t2viCzry3LG6Cg_NJKT+WWu_wztwZNx6fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Moderator Action] Missing items in KeyUsage
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:18:17 +0000
> From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> To: <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>
> This may have already been covered in the past, I have not read all of the
> history yet, but there are a couple of things that I noticed about the
> KeyUsage enumeration that I found off.
>
> 1.  There may be a desire to separate the idea of encrypt/decrypt between
> data and keys.  This leads to better separation of usage for key wrap items
>

In my proposal for wrap/unwrap these are separate operations from
encrypt/decrypt and we define new usages "wrap" and "unwrap".


>
> 2.  There may be a need to have a signOnce key usage as well.  If one is
> looking at creating an encrypt/decrypt only public key, one may still want
> to tag it as being able to do a single signature operation for the purposes
> of obtaining a certificate by signing a PKCS#10, CMC or CMP message.
>
> 3.  The current set of key usages does not have a key agreement usage.
>  What
> is the current view of how Diffie-Hellman keys are marked?  They are not
> actually encrypt/decrypt keys.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 22:55:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:16 UTC