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

Re: crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:36:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZbx7ZTdw6aqDq73TKpdbedacOX2LKA8t+MmgU9cSsudA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Cryptography Working Group <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Web Cryptography Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?
> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/23
> Raised by: Ryan Sleevi
> On product:
> Transferrable allows an object to be passed over a MessagePort, which allows it to be used with Web Workers. During initial discussions, it was suggested that CryptoOperations or Keys should have defined Transferrable semantics.
> The outstanding questions are:
> 1) Is there consensus to support Transferrable semantics?
> 2) If so, what are the use cases for Transferrables?
> 3) Because CryptoOperations represent objects with bound callbacks, what should the behaviour be for these Callbacks?
> 4) What happens if an object is Transferred in the midst of an operation?
> 5) If Key participates in the "structured clone algorithm", does it also need to be Transferrable?

This is similar to the clone() question, but specifically about
whether either object should support the "structured clone algorithm"
and/or be Transferrable. This is also closely related to ISSUE-8,
which is about describing key neutering.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:36:48 UTC

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