- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:21:30 +0000
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- CC: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> (Brought this up earlier, but I don't think it made it into the tracker...)
>
> The current spec requires that algorithm parameters be encapsulated in a "params" field within an algorithm identifier. For example:
> OLD: { name: "AES-GCM", params: { iv: [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0], tlen: 128 } }
> NEW: { name: "AES-GCM", iv: [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0], tlen: 128 }
>
> The only reason this extra complexity would be necessary is if we expected an algorithm to need a parameter called "name". This does not seem very likely; I see no problem making "name" a reserved word for the purpose of algorithm parameters.
>
> This requires the useless interface "dictionary AlgorithmParameters {};" from which individual algorithms specialize. Proposed revisions to WebIDL:
> -- Remove the AlgorithmParameters definition
> -- Remove the "AlgorithmParameters params;" from the Algorithm interface
> -- Change all descendants of AlgorithmParameters to instead inherit from Algorithm
>
> Whatever the opposite of "syntactic sugar" is, this is it. "Syntactic vinegar"?
"Syntactic arsenic".
i.e. I agree.
…Mark
>
> --Richard
>
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 23:21:58 UTC