- From: Anirban Basu <xon-basu@kddi.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:29:27 +0900
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org
On 10/20/15 3:59 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > > Yes. > > I suppose I was hoping you could elaborate. Do you know of user agents > likely to implement this? It would seem most of the active member UAs > seem unlikely, given the historical precedent underlying their > cryptographic libraries. It also seems that it has far less widestream > adoption potential (despite the ISO/IEC standarization, it doesn't > seem to have CFRG/IETF standardization for use on the Internet). > I was hoping to work on the standardisation through W3C to start with. Since you suggest that I go to UAs for adoption then I'll try talking to them. Perhaps, I should consider contributing to some of the open-source UAs there? Regarding KCipher-2 and IETF, there is an IETF RFC (informational) at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7008 -- it is the 128-bits version though. > I just want to make sure you gauge interest first before spending too > much time perfecting the spec. It's fine to ship rough and iterate > based on feedback :) > Yes, thanks. Agreed on that :-) > > If it is standalone, does it need to conform exactly to the Web > Crypto API, particularly the WebIDL in the Parameters and the > descriptions of the Operations? > > Yes! Absolutely, this is the most important part of proposing a new > algorithm. There will be a significantly higher bar if you're having > to introduce new abstractions or concepts to accomplish your algorithm. > I'll hold off perfecting the spec for now. I wasn't really thinking of disobeying the abstractions in the W3C spec but I have some specific questions, which I'll come to when we are further down the road.
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 07:30:20 UTC