- From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:10:07 -0700
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, Web Cryptography Working Group <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> As I've argued above, the implementation complexity is trivial, random generation plus maybe a counter. It's not clear to me how you think this is inconsistent, given that there are already defaults for some parameters already (e.g. tagLength). The only difference is that these are reset per operation. >>>> >>> >>> Good point. This seems like an oversight that tagLength has a default >>> - it should be removed, to be consistent. >> >> Huh? I thought we had agreed a few threads ago that it was sensible to have tagLength = 128 as a default. >> >> --Richard >> >> > > It was pointed out a few threads ago that = 0 was a bad default. > > The real issue was supplying a default at all. That latter issue is new to the discussion. In any case, summarily making a change like that without any WG discussion seems presumptuous of the editor. --Richard
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 14:10:36 UTC