- From: Stefan Xenon <stefanxe@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:58:53 +0100
- To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, ddahl@mozilla.com
- Cc: sleevi@google.com, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org, Michael.Jones@microsoft.com, tolga.acar@intel.com, tonynad@microsoft.com
Following this discussion it seems to me that including blind signatures into the API (instead of a generic bigint API) would actually be within reach. Is there anything I can do to help the process of getting blind signatures included (we would need Chaum RSA)? -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:47:19 -0500 > Von: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> > An: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> > CC: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, Tolga Acar <tolga.acar@intel.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Stefan Xenon <stefanxe@gmx.net>, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> > Betreff: Re: RSA blind signatures > +1 > > Integer sizing is a question for the underlying language. > > > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:42 PM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > One of the original intents (of mine anyway) was to avoid polyfilling. > However, I think we should defer to TC39 on the question of bigint within > this DOM API. > > > > Cheers, > > > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Anthony Nadalin" <tonynad@microsoft.com> > >> To: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com> > >> Cc: "Tolga Acar" <tolga.acar@intel.com>, "Mike Jones" > <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "Stefan Xenon" > >> <stefanxe@gmx.net>, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:20:34 PM > >> Subject: RE: RSA blind signatures > >> > >> I don't believe it's outside the current charter at all, please point > >> to where you think this violates the current charter, I also don't > >> believe the sole purpose of this group is to avoid polyfilling > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:17 AM > >> To: Anthony Nadalin > >> Cc: Acar, Tolga; Mike Jones; Stefan Xenon; > >> public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org > >> Subject: Re: RSA blind signatures > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony Nadalin > >> <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> Just not sure I follow the logic from this thread, we are propose > >>> other function that is needed for various crypto functions, why not > >>> the bigint? > >> > >> Because we're specifically not proposing something that low-level. > >> The only reason you need bigint is to polyfill something. The whole > >> point of this API is so that you don't have to polyfill something. > >> > >>> When it comes to blind signatures there are several ways to do > >>> that, > >>> we have the requirement to be able to use blind signatures (not > >>> Chaum's RSA) within the browser, we also need bigint. So we are in > >>> favor of this proposal. > >> > >> There has not been a proposal. This is a question about something > >> outside of our charter. The question at hand is whether or not to > >> recharter to embrace this feature. > >> > >> I strongly oppose rechartering, since this is clearly an issue of the > >> language, and not of user agents. If Javascript wishes to support > >> arbitrary precision integers, as opposed to the current types today, > >> then it should be done in TC39. Given that TC39 has discussed this > >> in the past, I see no value in us taking up that mantle. > >> > >> This is especially true because, within this group, the only reason > >> to talk bigints is to talk about polyfilling (whether ZRTP, > >> arbitrary KDFs from DH shared secrets, blind signatures, or vanity > >> crypto), and I would argue that the entire purpose of this group is > >> to avoid the need for polyfilling (which you can already do today - > >> see, for example, SJCL) > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Acar, Tolga [mailto:tolga.acar@intel.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:45 PM > >>> To: Mike Jones; Stefan Xenon; public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; > >>> sleevi@google.com > >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: RE: RSA blind signatures > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Although I, too, would like to work on and use a bigint API in js, > >>> I > >>> am much less inclined to augment the web crypto API with a general > >>> purpose bigint API that looks more like math (group operations in > >>> particular) than crypto library. If there is interest in a bigint > >>> API > >>> in js, and it looks like there is, that should come under separate > >>> cover instead of being mixed with the Web Crypto API. So, what does > >>> that "separate cover" mean? A new WG, a natural extension of this > >>> WG? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - Tolga > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] > >>> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:57 PM > >>> To: Stefan Xenon; public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; > >>> sleevi@google.com > >>> Subject: RE: RSA blind signatures > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For what it's worth, I know of other groups interested in native > >>> speed > >>> bigint math in JavaScript. > >>> > >>> -- Mike > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> > >>> From: Stefan Xenon > >>> Sent: 11/23/2012 8:15 AM > >>> To: public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; sleevi@google.com > >>> Subject: Re: RSA blind signatures > >>> > >>> Hi Ryan, > >>> by any chance, could we propose such bigint API? If this would have > >>> a > >>> realistic chance, how is the process to move forward? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Stefan > >>> > >>> Am 23.11.2012 18:43, schrieb Ryan Sleevi: > >>>> A bigint API has not been proposed. > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 23, 2012 1:47 AM, "Stefan Xenon" <stefanxe@gmx.net > >>>> <mailto:stefanxe@gmx.net>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi! > >>>> We are developing a system (www.opencoin.org > >>>> <http://www.opencoin.org>) which uses Chaum's RSA > >>>> blind signatures. Of course I don't expect the Web Crypto API > >>>> to > >>>> natively support blind signatures. Instead we would like to > >>>> utilize > >>>> "raw" big integer operations to speed up our calculations. But > >>>> In your > >>>> current draft I couldn't find such basic operations exposed to > >>>> web > >>>> applications. Primarily we would need big integer operations > >>>> for > >>>> exponentiation and inverting (both modulo). Did I overlook > >>>> such > >>>> functions? Or would it be possible for your API to expose such > >>>> functions > >>>> to web applications? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Stefan > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 00:46:09 UTC