[Bug 25985] WebCrypto should be inter-operable

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25985

--- Comment #45 from Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> ---
(In reply to Henri Sivonen from comment #44)
> (In reply to Ryan Sleevi from comment #43)
> > The same is true for Firefox.
> 
> I just downloaded a release build from ftp.mozilla.org for Linux and it came
> with
> libnss3.so
> libnssckbi.so
> libnssdbm3.chk
> libnssdbm3.so
> libnssutil3.so
> libplc4.so
> libplds4.so
> libsmime3.so
> libsoftokn3.chk
> libsoftokn3.so
> 
> What am I missing?

I believe both Ryan and Henri's arguments have merits, but I might add we also
would like to leave Last Call and have another call coming up next week. 

Right now, we do have currently zero mandatory algorithms. It is very likely
that some specialized implementations of WebCrypto (such as that being proposed
by Netflix) will not be "in browsers." That being said, I also recognize that
we at W3C owe Web developers some promise of interoperability in browsers for
some common functions. On the call, Ryan was OK with some algorithms being
"normative for browsers". 

Can we revisit Virginie's earlier proposal, but with the following change to
normative:

"We will define a browser profile after interoperability testing is conducted
with different implementations. This browser profile should be *normative* and
should describe the exact behavior of the browser in case part of the
algorithms are not available, or partially available, or disabled by the user. 
As such it is required to treat that bug once implementations have been
demonstrated, which means after the call for implementation (see process
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi)"

Thus, we can add as a "Feature at Risk" going into CR some text that there may
be TBD normative algorithms for browser implementation, and then determine
those precise algorithms (if any, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some)
before exiting CR. 

Would that satisfy both the commenters and the editor?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 14:25:30 UTC