Re: Request for feedback on KCipher-2 Working Draft

On 10/20/15 3:59 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> > Yes.
>
> I suppose I was hoping you could elaborate. Do you know of user agents
> likely to implement this? It would seem most of the active member UAs
> seem unlikely, given the historical precedent underlying their
> cryptographic libraries. It also seems that it has far less widestream
> adoption potential (despite the ISO/IEC standarization, it doesn't
> seem to have CFRG/IETF standardization for use on the Internet).
>

I was hoping to work on the standardisation through W3C to start with.
Since you suggest that I go to UAs for adoption then I'll try talking to
them. Perhaps, I should consider contributing to some of the open-source
UAs there?

Regarding KCipher-2 and IETF, there is an IETF RFC (informational) at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7008 -- it is the 128-bits version though.

> I just want to make sure you gauge interest first before spending too
> much time perfecting the spec. It's fine to ship rough and iterate
> based on feedback :)
>

Yes, thanks. Agreed on that :-)

> > If it is standalone, does it need to conform exactly to the Web
> Crypto API, particularly the WebIDL in the Parameters and the
> descriptions of the Operations?
>
> Yes! Absolutely, this is the most important part of proposing a new
> algorithm. There will be a significantly higher bar if you're having
> to introduce new abstractions or concepts to accomplish your algorithm.
>

I'll hold off perfecting the spec for now. I wasn't really thinking of
disobeying the abstractions in the W3C spec but I have some specific
questions, which I'll come to when we are further down the road.

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 07:30:20 UTC