On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 July 2015 at 11:00, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote: > > What about other certificate attributes, such as common name, subject, > > issuer, etc? > > Make a case for each. Note that certificates in WebRTC are glorified > public key container; none of those attributes are interesting in the > default case. > I agree these are typically not interesting in the default WebRTC use case. The reason I asked is that these fields are typically present in the certificate API. > Also, should application be able to limit the certificate lifetime? > > Funny you should ask. I found that I needed a private API extension > for testing expiration. I can propose the necessary API if you are > interested. > These API are normally only needed for testing purposes only. Once again, I asked since access to these are common for certificate API as well. _____________ Roman Shpount
Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 21:34:15 UTC