For those of us that were at the W3C Web Crypto Next Steps workshop (I was there), it may help to remind ourselves of what was actually arrived at or agreed to, or determined to be high / medium / low priority at the time of that workshop. There were notes taken, and also an executive summary <https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/webcrypto-next-workshop/report.html>. I'm certainly curious of the status of the next steps rechartering at this point in terms of process. I have been observing some of the discussions related to this periodically. -C On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Martin Paljak <martin.paljak@ria.ee> > wrote: > >> It amazes me that for some reason many people seem to equate "eID" (like >> PIV) and "PKCS#11". >> >> Browser vendors don't want it (for a good reason) and nobody sane enough >> is proposing to include something as generic and low level >> implementation specific as PKCS#11 *into the browser*. This has been >> discussed over and over again. > > > Yes it has been discussed over and over again. I was at the W3C Web Crypto > Next Steps workshop in Mountain View in September 2014, where > representatives from dozens of national ID providers were in attendance and > there was ample discussion of building a PKCS#11 bridge to browsers. > > While you may think it's misguided (and certainly I don't disagree), and > while the people involved may have changed their tune in the intervening > year and a half, this was the predominant approach discussed at that > workshop. > > -- > Tony Arcieri >
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 03:40:53 UTC