- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:44:46 +0000
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25711 --- Comment #2 from Kelsey Cairns <kelsey.cairns@inria.fr> --- So I guess the larger problem is not so much confusion at the level of how behaves. In my mind it's branching into two new directions which should possibly be different bugs. I still need to think about the how-keys-behave direction. But the lack-of-clarity direction is more a matter of discrepancy between the actual API spec and what the use cases and structure would lead one to think. If you want an example of what I'm thinking, consider the word "import" with respect to keys. There are many possible interpretations here, but it seems to me that a very natural one suggests transferring a key from the outside world into some local storage for many keys. The semantics WebCrypto has chosen is different in that the container into which a key is imported is more of a wrapper -- something that holds a single key in a way to make it useable with the rest of the API. Both interpretations make sense; The chosen language (import/export) doesn't imply that we're *not* talking about a general keystore. Okay. So the phrase "agnostic to underlying key storage mechanism" is near the top of the spec somewhere. Really, anyone who reads that shouldn't be confused by the import/export language. Now consider all the use cases. The first use case mentioned dives into a description that very implies that users can authenticate in later sessions. The phrase "proving that the user has access to some secret keying material" implies persistent keys. The use cases continue, suggesting (and even relying on) persist storage but glossing over the details. So all in all, here's my conclusion: yes, the API specifically states how keys work. But the surrounding language and discussion aren't consistent with what is specified by the API and what is out of scope. Given that it's an English language document and its readers are humans, I think this might be one of the things causing so much general confusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 13:44:47 UTC