W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Registries and Interoperability

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:49:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYXwoqUwKfRFXg2fSP3kwgrS7ZDzmhLG0SqieGCopj9Wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Cc: Seetharama Rao Durbha <S.Durbha@cablelabs.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Seetharama Rao Durbha <S.Durbha@cablelabs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/8/13 2:04 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>>  If there is going to be a consistent set of algorithms, then the API will have to have requirements for UAs.  If there are no requirements for UAs, there is no guarantee of consistency.
>> I do not think that having a consistent 'naming' is same as 'requiring' the UAs to implement them.
> I will mark you down in camp (A) then :)
> You are certainly correct.  However, the argument has been made that the set of names needs to be constrained in order to ensure that web developers have a consistent list of algorithms that they know they can use.  That implies that UAs are required to implement the algorithms in the list.
> --Richard

No. It implies UAs shouldn't define arbitrary algorithm names to
(in)consistently implement the same underlying algorithm.
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 21:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:02:00 UTC