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

Re: HmacKeyAlgorithm missing length?

From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:48:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQ62w+J5C3KKnkwBCV-s98cjH7p_MtTAJxrkHG65Or1RA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Will do.


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:

> 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 22:48:35 UTC

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