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

Re: Meeting today: Agenda for Telecon Monday May 6th 20:00 GMT

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:21:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZJB_SY8zAUk6iuTy5_71q7wLT-i67T5MKFeKDf26Cafg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
On May 6, 2013 9:08 AM, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> We'll be meeting today, same time and place as usual:
>>
>> +1.617.761.6200, 27978# (CRYPT)
>> IRC irc.w3.org:6665 #crypto
>> 20h GMT
>>
>> I'm filling in for Virginie writing this agenda -  here's my take on high
>> priority things to discuss, feel free to amend!
>>
>> 1) Futures examples and integration into editors draft - next public
>> working draft?
>>
>> 2) new use-cases - scheduling folks time with Arun
>>
>> 3) Key wrap/unwrap integration as "feature at risk"
>
>
> The issue Ryan and I have been discussing is whether there is ever any
security significance to the API boundary (between UA and JS). Or, put
another way, whether there is a reasonable use-case for never exposing keys
to the JS (in the absence of pre-provisioned keys).
>
> We've agreed to include key wrap/unwrap as a "feature at risk" (twice). I
don't think we should revisit the inclusion of that in the next editor's
draft.
>
> We do need to discuss the boundary topic, as that is a point of
significant disagreement which might affect what we do with wrap, unwrap
and other features in future.

I think the format bears some discussion - how coupled is it to the
security assumptions being made and how separable is JOSE, even with
wrap/unwrap being included as at risk.

That said, I feel like were making good progress on list on this, and don't
know if its necessary yet to couple it to the call, given the technical
subtleties of what we're discussing.

>
> ...Mark
>
>>
>>
>> 3) Next week, optional  high-level API meeting
>>
>> 4) Inviting more review - for example,  getting Dan Boneh et al. actually
>> write down their critiques on mailing list. Dan Boneh offered to join a
>> telecon - shall we aim for the next 2 week?
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 16:22:11 UTC

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