- From: Mountie Lee <mountie.lee@mw2.or.kr>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:46:16 +0900
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, Seetharama Rao Durbha <S.Durbha@cablelabs.com>, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>, Web Cryptography Working Group <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE-+aYJ4-R_hR2EhfUETBoFU08zGeQP3gVzVERT96t62kcxQrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi. I will try to prepare use cases for this issue. also I'm checking the alternatives with open mind. let me have a time. regards mountie. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> wrote: > > It would be nice for implementations to be able to support two types > > of key access: > > - origin-bound keys > > - shared keys that are associated with certificates > > > > The Key object should be specified to have an attribute related to > > which origins may use the key. We can start with supporting > > origin-bound keys only. > > > > Also, after a signing key has been used, it seems dangerous to broaden > > the origins. I am worried that an old signature generated when only > > one origin was allowed may become valid for other origins > > retroactively. So this key attribute for access control probably > > should be immutable for signing keys at least. > > > > Wan-Teh > > Mountie, Wan-Teh, or Seetharama, > > Could one of you please write-up a concrete Use Case for multiple > origin key access? I want to make sure we have a place where we can > capture: > 1) Why is it useful/valuable > 2) What are the security and privacy risks > 3) Why other alternatives are not suitable > 3a) script-src , which inherits the SOP of the including domain > 3b) Web Intents > 3c) inter-origin communication mechanisms (postMessage, iframe, CORS, > etc) > > I'm deeply concerned about #2 here, so I want to make sure we can > actually have something concrete to discuss. > > I also don't believe we should attempt to reach consensus on this > issue prior to FPWD. As referenced in previous documents, the state of > the art and the active encouragement of the web community is not to > violate the SOP. In order to help reviewers understand why the > violation is useful or important, I think a strong use case will need > to be presented. > ======================================= PayGate Inc. THE STANDARD FOR ONLINE PAYMENT for Korea, Japan, China, and the World
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 02:47:00 UTC