W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Reminder: WebCrypto WG Meeting in 30 minutes

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:47:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZon0XzKCkhFh8jApPRSu8gB8PFx7u7QhH2CE-jT=UZmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Not entirely true - we have received feedback from several members (Boris,
Anne) about issues affecting implementability.

See Bugs 25390, 25389, 25198, 25386, 25383, 25382

These are the kind of things that are *most useful* to the spec - promoting
idiomatic Web APIs that are consistent with developers expectations and use
cases. We've recently been able to close out Bug 24963 (update pending),
which is another prime example of a meaningful change for usability.

The W3C TAG is in the process of reviewing the spec (
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/3 ) and has already
highlighted some issues that can be done to improve things.

We know that INRIA is reviewing the spec (thread "WebCrypto Security
Analysis")

I think we're on track with the level of feedback we expected / hoped for.
As a low-level API, there are very few "design choices" on a crypto level
to be commented on, beyond those that SAAG / CFRG has highlighted.  Some we
can resolve, some we may not be able to.

The choice of algorithms, however, is actually far, far less interesting
than the set of API design choices we've made, and ensuring those are
well-reviewed.



On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

> We should go over a number of things, such as the workshop proposal, any
> controversial new bugs, and how to get more feedback from developers on the
> Last Call Working Draft. We're half way through Last Call and so far only
> have some commentary from the SAAG.
>
>   yours,
>      harry
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 19:48:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:22 UTC