W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: [last call feedback] Last Call of Web Crypto API; deadline May 20

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:49:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaBwUG-zGcRTAhQ6Lqe4da9sF85_v2zvQZp+vg5bL2qfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org
On May 16, 2014 7:20 PM, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
wrote:
> > WebApps was asked to review the Last Call Working Draft of the Web
Crypto
> > API:
> >
> >   <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-WebCryptoAPI-20140325/>
> >
> > Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback.
>
> I don't really have the crypto chops to do anything more than a
> superficial review here, so just a couple of pieces of feedback:
>
> Should Key be a dictionary rather than an interface?

No. There is a hidden opaque handle for the cryptosystem that is
represented by the Key object, that is a Platform object that can't be
polyfilled.

The TAG review on github digs into this much deeper.

>
> Same question for KeyAlgorithm and anything that derives from it. It
> looks like these interfaces just provides a bunch of properties.
> Unless it also stores internal data (?) it looks like this would be
> better done as a dictionary.

This was raised during TAG and is being corrected. It will be an object
type, converted from Dictionaries of the same (existing) types. The
dictionaries serve as spec shorthand.

>
> The fact that KeyAlgorithm is a [NoInterfaceObject] further indicates
this.
>
> / Jonas
>
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 04:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:24 UTC