Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] Rechartering discussion

Hi all,

thanks to the browser makers for clarifying their strategy with respect to Web Crypto WG next steps.
A draft charter will be setup accordinlgy, for the WG review and comments.
In addition, a survey will be issued to record the other ideas that other WG participants would like to work on and identify next possible steps based on that.
Stay tuned.

Regards,
Virginie

________________________________
De : Richard Barnes [rlb@ipv.sx]
Envoyé : vendredi 20 février 2015 23:52
À : Harry Halpin
Cc : Ryan Sleevi; Israel Hilerio; public-webcrypto@w3.org; GALINDO Virginie; Vijay Bharadwaj
Objet :Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] Rechartering discussion

Yeah, to be clear, I am interested in possibilities for exposing secure hardware in a way that makes sense for the web.  But (1) everything I've seen indicates to me that that is not a task for this WG, and (2) I haven't seen a proposal that's suitable to be the basis for a WG.

--Richard

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org<mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:


On 02/20/2015 11:09 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com<mailto:israelh@microsoft.com>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Virginie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our apologies for being late to the party.  Microsoft’s opinion regarding
>>> the re-charting of the WebCrypto WG is to focus on the following items:
>>>
>>> * New algorithms
>>>
>>> * Extending the APIs to support Streams when the Streams spec is updated
>>> by the W3C
>>
>>
>> +1 from the Mozilla side.
>>
>> To the extent that there is any more work to be done, it is in specifying
>> any further algorithms that are necessary.  I would caveat, though, that we
>> should not take on any deliverables on non-NIST elliptic curves before the
>> CFRG process closes.  While they are quite a bit behind schedule, they
>> appear to be closing in on a solution.
>>
>> I'm don't have an urgent need for Streams support, but wouldn't object to
>> adding the scope.
>>
>> --Richard
>
> While it should hopefully come as no surprise and not need saying,
> this is exactly our position as well, so a +1 to that :)

Congrats for the consensus from all the major browser vendors! That was
painless :)

It appears the many other items that were brought up may still have
quite a lot of interest from members, but we at W3C are also open to
looking at other existing WGs or creating new Working Groups. We'll be
back in touch with next steps for that early next week.
>

________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus