- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:53:30 +0200
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>
- CC: "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" <public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org>
On 08/30/2012 02:13 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Although it is very inspiring to see the volume of messages on the public-webcrypto@w3.org mailing-list, I think some of this also reflects the lack of work with the actual use-cases.
As defined in the charter, the use-cases are only for secondary
features. The primary features were given as rather obvious and thus not
in need of use-cases.
As noted earlier, most of your comments have been either about secondary
features or about features that are out-of-scope. Certificate handling
of the kind needed for plug-ins and smart cards are secondary features.
>
> After the FPWD I urge the people that are interested in use-cases to outline how *they* interpret that the specification supports a particular use-case.
> I'm probably stupid, but I don't understand how the current (2012-08-19) draft could eliminate custom plugins of the kind used in Korea and Sweden.
>
> To do that you (IMO) must define what current plugins do, and how you by using JS/HTML5 code and WebCrypto could emulate that functionality.
>
> Some of the use-cases are also essentially undocumented like SSL VPN.
>
> Use-cases should describe 1) what's currently missing 2) desired/proposed new functionality.
>
> Use-cases should also be upgraded to reflect the current specification.
>
> I know that this has not been done with for example XML Dsig but XML Dsig is just a format.
>
> I'm prepared taking on the plugin use-case in case nobody else does.
That would be great, just write it up in as much detail as you think is
required and sent it to the mailing list.
cheers,
harry
>
> Thanx,
> Anders
>
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:53:40 UTC