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

Re: HmacKeyAlgorithm missing length?

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:44:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaFrLS80USnj4BGABpD5nUBS4dkVNkGU9k-hhC3_NYvGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
I don't see a spec bug filed. Did you mean to file one?

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The NoInterfaceObject is largely syntactic sugar, since interface objects
>> do get created once the object is exposed as an attribute. Arguably, we
>> could remove them all and have the exact same external behaviour.
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean to say "readonly unsigned long length" - since this
>> is an interface, not a dictionary.
>>
>
> Yep.  Copy/paste error.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>>
>> I can buy that for a dollar. It matches the same justification for the
>> other keys - allow an app to determine (effective) security strength of the
>> key in question.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems like we expose length attributes for all of the *KeyAlgorithm
>>> interfaces besides HmacKeyAlgorithm.  Also, the other *KeyAlgorithm
>>> interfaces have the [NoInterfaceObject] directive.
>>>
>>> Proposed micro-patch:
>>> +[NoInterfaceObject]
>>>  interface HmacKeyAlgorithm : KeyAlgorithm {
>>>    // The inner hash function to use.
>>>    readonly attribute KeyAlgorithm hash;
>>> +  // The length (in bits) of the key
>>> +  [EnforceRange] unsigned long length;
>>>  };
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 22:44:49 UTC

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