- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:53:47 +0000
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26465 --- Comment #7 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> --- Ok, so at least we are clear on the problem. I think that a future algorithm for operation X which needs to be parameterized by with an algorithm for operation Y, with Y != X is far far more likely than the case where Y == X. Can you give me any examples of an algorithm where Y == X ? A signature algorithm which needs to be parameterized with another signature algorithm ? An encryption algorithm which needs to be parameterized with another encryption algorithm ? If we are not going to solve this problem now (which I agree is an option), we should remove the recursive normalization except for the explicit digest case, because there are even fewer potential applications for that. It's also confusing because there is no rationale for supporting that case and not the more general one. I agree with your point about the complexity of defining a full solution in this specification. The alternative is to defer to the extension specification, when/if it happens, by simply saying that the operation to be used will be defined in the specification of the new algorithm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 15:53:48 UTC