W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > August 2012

New Editor's Draft

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 22:55:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYUyTuHcz1t6G9HGwUCkFOBVF3woeW8jezpNRNm-ohKEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
Cc: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
I have returned from travel and have begun the arduous process of
incorporating into the Editor's Draft the notes from the excellent and
productive face-to-face last month.

To that end, I've updated the Editor's Draft [1] with some of the
feedback provided during our sessions. I will be continuing to update
it throughout the week, as we work through the many open ISSUES (14)
and ACTIONS (18). My approach is to try and ensure a section is fully
specified for FPWD, noting any appropriate ISSUEs as necessary for
further discussion. Thus, I would ask for substantive review of
sections 1 (Introduction) through sections 10 (Key interface).

I've uploaded version 1.12 of the document, and have made the following changes:
- Per the Face-to-Face, updated the Editor's Section
- Per feedback from the previous draft, and related to ACTION-13,
ACTION-15, and ACTION-17, I've updated the Use Cases section to
provide "simple" use cases that demonstrate how this API might be
used. This is not meant to be an exhaustive reflection of our Use
Cases Wiki [2], but simply to provide some context. It's very likely
that these can be made even more concise, so proposed changes would be
very welcome.
- Per the Face-to-Face, I've incorporated an IDL definition of the Key
object. In looking through the discussion notes and minutes, I've
raised several new issues [3], [4], [5], [6] that will need to be

As a further reminder, a number of ACTIONs were opened following our
face-to-face that require consideration. Please make sure to check [7]
for outstanding actions.

One of the issues that I think will fundamentally define this API is
the choice of serialization/deserialization format for algorithms,
their associated parameters, and keys. [3], [8]. It would be very
useful to gather feedback from potential implementors and consumers
about the desired format for the API.

Thanks for the continued patience as we rapidly move towards FPWD.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/WebCryptoAPI/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Use_Cases
[3] https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/14
[4] https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/15
[5] https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/16
[6] https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/17
[7] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/open
[8] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/13
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 05:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:01:25 UTC