Re: Use-case Clarifications Required

On 2012-08-30 18:53, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 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.

Dear Harry,
It is possible that I'm misinterpreting this but I see numerous of messages that seems to belong to the secondary features.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0378.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0366.html

I wouldn't be surprised if the interest in fact is bigger in the secondary features than in the primary dittos.

What I'm proposing is that people who are interested in the secondary use-cases start working with these now rather than hoping on some kind of miracle in the future.

> 
> 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.

My own peek into this topic indicates that there could be a need for profound changes in the browser platform to actually get anywhere.
IMHO this must be recognized or rejected *before* the any successful WG process can start.

>>
>> 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.

I will although I'm trying to get input from other interested parties to make a more consolidated contribution.

Cheers,
Anders

> 
>    cheers,
>     harry
> 
>>
>> Thanx,
>> Anders
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 17:51:13 UTC