Re: BigNum API Proposal

On 03/04/2013 07:32 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>> Could you clarify why this needs to be done as a web API instead of in JS?
>>
>> To answer the obvious question: The WebCrypto API needs to provide crypto primitives so that the keying material can remain hidden from the JS in most circumstances.  Not clear to me that that applies to general BigNum stuff.
> Huge +1. I think this has absolutely no place as a DOM API - which is
> what we're talking about.
Tony,

Thanks for the very concrete suggestions!

1) I think one thing that would help would be a use-case for the ZKP 
work I assume is motivating this API.

2) What kinds of primitives can not be built on top of the low-level API 
and BigInt [1]?

I think if the use-case is convincing and certain BigInt operations 
require client-side performance, I would not rule things out of scope 
just because it should be "in the language" rather than "in the DOM." 
For example, one could argue that real random number generation should 
be in the language, not the DOM equally, but we need it for the Crypto 
use-cases, so thus its part of this API. However, the key should be to 
minimize the number of features to be implemented.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/#big-integer


>
>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With all the discussion about blind signatures and support for BigNum, here is a draft API that Microsoft is submitting to the WG as a basis for the API. The BigNum API is common function in other JS libraries and a needed basic function for nonstandard algorithms. We would like to further discuss this at the up and coming F2F thus a heads up and a chance to read prior and looking forward to comments and discussions.
>>> <CryptoAPI.j_>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 10:49:35 UTC