ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?

Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
usability for Web Crypto API
Raised by:
Ryan Sleevi
Opened on:
2012-08-20
Description:
Transferrable allows an object to be passed over a MessagePort, which allows it to be used with Web Workers. During initial discussions, it was suggested that CryptoOperations or Keys should have defined Transferrable semantics.

The outstanding questions are:
1) Is there consensus to support Transferrable semantics?
2) If so, what are the use cases for Transferrables?
3) Because CryptoOperations represent objects with bound callbacks, what should the behaviour be for these Callbacks?
4) What happens if an object is Transferred in the midst of an operation?
5) If Key participates in the "structured clone algorithm", does it also need to be Transferrable?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. New proposal for ISSUE-23 (Globally unique identifiers) (from watsonm@netflix.com on 2012-11-02)
  2. Re: crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics? (from sleevi@google.com on 2012-08-20)
  3. crypto-ISSUE-23: Should CryptoOperations and/or Keys support Transferrable semantics? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-08-20)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 23.html,v 1.1 2017/02/13 16:16:50 ted Exp $