W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2015

Re: WebRTC Certificate Management - a plea to NOT use Web Crypto

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:42:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2-8Jfy1mXr5UTTWWqFKVeEf9Br-y9kdLxDbi7=m_Av3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
We did talk about it, and my takeaway at the time was that the best path
forward would be for WebRTC to define its own key-generate function, and
return an object that was API-compatible with WebCrypto (so that we didn't
have two different objects in the web platform to represent 'key'). As Eric
says, this became the basis of the current proposal, so you can blame me
for any misinterpretation.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
>> This design was raised privately, wherein I expressed a number of serious
>> misgivings about the appropriateness, suggested alternatives and raised
>> objections. To see this same proposal -  without any attempt to resolve
>> these concerns or even a presentation or acknowledgement of how many there
>> - are is profoundly frustrating and suggests that all efforts previously to
>> avoid this and improve it were considerable time well wasted. The only
>> conclusion readily apparent, outside of bad faith, would be that it wasn't
>> realized how serious these concerns were, and making sure it is abundantly
>> apparent that this is an ill-fit through unambiguous and unhedged language
>> hopefully expresses this. You can see the tone as strong, whereas my goal
>> is no misrepresentation to ambiguity in my position.
> [snip]
> Ryan,
> I'd like to see if we can bring down the heat level a bit.
> Certainly, it wasn't anyone's intention to somehow surprise you by bringing
> something to group that you objected to. Indeed, I circulated an earlier
> version
> of this to Justin Uberti and it was my understanding that he had talked to
> you
> and that you were (grudgingly) OK with it. I'm sorry to hear that you
> aren't
> in fact OK with it, and frankly, I'm rather frustrated by that as well,
> since I
> thought that we had reached something that everyone could live with.
> Obviously that's not true, and there was a miscommunication somewhere.
> I'll reply to your substantive objections about the proposal in a separate
> message. Given the time of day (and of year), that will probably take a
> day or few, but I wanted to write now to perhaps see if we could clear up
> any concerns that your objections were deliberately ignored. They
> weren't.
> -Ekr
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 00:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:03 UTC