- From: Acar, Tolga <tolga.acar@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:23:47 +0000
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
One aspect: exposure of raw key material in IndexedDB instead of a Key object that may not be extractable. - Tolga > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:28 PM > To: Acar, Tolga > Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org Group > Subject: Re: Scope of key discovery draft > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Acar, Tolga wrote: > > > Thanks, Mark. I have another use case of named origin-specific keys. > > > > The only difference, as the name above suggests, is that these keys are not > pre-provisioned; they are created on-demand for later use. This is similar to > native crypto API behavior. A key is created and stored if it doesn't exist, and > is retrieved if it is already there. > > What aspect of your use-case is not covered by storing the Key object in > IndexedDB ? > > ...Mark > > > > > - Tolga > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com] > >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:43 PM > >> To: public-webcrypto@w3.org Group > >> Subject: Scope of key discovery draft > >> > >> All, > >> > >> On the call, I presented the key discovery draft as containing only > >> the material on "named origin-specific pre-provisioned keys", but it > >> could be extended, if there was support, to other kinds of key discovery. > >> > >> Ryan voiced the opinion that the scope of the document should be > >> restricted to just this case and that other cases should be addressed > >> in other documents. > >> > >> I would like to know if there are any other opinions ? > >> > >> If not, does anyone have a good suggestion for a shorter name ? > >> "WebCrypto: Discovery of named origin-specific pre-provisioned keys" > >> is a bit of a mouthful. > >> > >> ...Mark > >
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 23:24:16 UTC