- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:42:50 +0000
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25710 --- Comment #4 from Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> --- (In reply to Ryan Sleevi from comment #3) > (In reply to Matt Miller from comment #2) > > As a user of the API, I do find it worthwhile to be able to explicitly > > invalidate a key. However, since the WG consensus seems to be to rely on > > ECMAScript's object lifetime, I can live with this for now. It would help > > users of the API if that it were stated, even non-normatively. > > What's the use case for explicitly invalidating? > How is explicit invalidation meant to operate > - when the user has multiple tabs open > - when the user has postMessage()'d the key to a worker > - when the user has postMessage()'d the key to another origin > > Note that answering any of these questions implies assumptions about a > storage model, which as you noted, is something we've attempted assiduously > to avoid. IndexedDB has largely addressed these (with a significant bit of > complexity added to the underlying HTML spec to handle database locking > semantics). Likewise, other APIs have outright refused to create > multi-context aware objects (eg: ArrayBuffer being Transferrable, rather > than Cloneable) for this reason. I won't deny that there be dragons here. As a user of the API, if I detect that a key might be suspect (and there are a plethora of ways that can happen, a lot of them application-specific), that I can make a call on window.crypto.subtle to say "don't let this key be used again". When any of the other tabs/windows/frames tried to use the key, it would be rejected() with some error (hypothetically "invalid key"). I completely understand there are synchronization issues within the user agents, but I would find the above very worthwhile. Absent that, it would be helpful to me (a user of the API) to read in the spec that key deletion is explicitly out-of-scope and relies on the lifetimes inherent to ECMAScript objects, and whatever extra-spec storage system I use (e.g., IndexedDB). I want to know what I'm getting into if/when I use this API. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 23:42:52 UTC