>Nelson Bolyard wrote: >> Yes, telling the user who wants it would help A LOT. Sadly, that's a >> browser architecture matter of which the NSS team has no influence.
Martin Paljak wrote: >I think that approaching Firefox team from the NSS side AND from >outside would give a better result than just outsiders requesting new >features/changes. It seems that we are stuck unless we can gather interest from 1. The Mozilla architecture team 2. Some external parties Since #2 is difficult due to the political nature of standardization as well as the fact that a lot of stuff is covered by NDAs and/or is written in languages that few understand, a working effort must probably start with #1 to provide some ground for future work. I still advocate for creating a facility for invoking XML protocols because then you get a foundation for things that do not really apply to "pages". Yes, I know <keygen> is page-oriented but I don't see much point with that if you need more than one step in a process which the majority of applicable protocols actually do. If you don't appreciate private efforts such as KeyGen2, you can take a look on IETF's almost finished DSKKP and tell me how you would integrate that in Firefox. I would like to see a system where KeyGen2 and DSKPP can compete as well as the Estonian, Austrian and Scandinavian signature systems, and then let the market decide if any of those schemes belong to the standard browser distribution. A requirement here is that the XML protocol extension must be Java + JavaScript- based so that we get way from platform-dependent code. If not, the foundation will be too crippled to function as a test-bed for innovation and proof-of-concept schemes. Standardization is probably years away but that is something we can live with. Some of the most important schemes including SSL were actually NOT created by a committee to begin with. Anders -- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
