[whatwg] A few comments on the <keygen> tag
mjs at apple.com
Wed Apr 15 13:24:07 PDT 2009
On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Dear list,
> I may indeed be biased since I run a private standardization effort
> coined KeyGen2 which is designed to replace <keygen>.
> Anyway, it might be of some general interest knowing why I have
> started this thing.
> Microsoft does not support <keygen>. If I were Microsoft I wouldn't
> bother since all CAs have adapted themselves to Microsoft's scheme.
> Microsoft's scheme (CertEnroll) is more flexible than <keygen>,
> albeit much more complex as well.
> Now to the really problematic stuff: <keygen> is not really an HTML
> tag, it is actually 2 phases of a 3-phase key provisioning
> protocol. I don't see why a protocol should be plugged into a page
> GUI. The alternatives all use APIs or specific plugins that indeed
> may be spawned from an HTML page but that's something completely
> Just as a comparison I would like to mention the fact that the
> KeyGen2 schema is about 25 times the size of the <keygen>
> specification. Although that could indicate a major design error
> in KeyGen2, the truth (according to me of course...) is that
> <keygen> is way too limited to be used by serious issuers like banks
> and governments.
> I would also consider the "market" for <keygen>. For PCs, physical
> token distribution is the standard, that's why there has been so
> little interest in on-line provisioning. However, for mobile
> phones, on-line provisioning is really the only good method unless
> you are a government and buy into $200+ solutions like the following:
> A difference with mobile phones is that when the phone=token you can
> do much cooler things than you can on a PC, including trusted
> execution and provisioning. It seems a bit short-sighted to build
> on a 15 year old design without at least having investigated what is
> HTML5 looks great but I think you should stick to page layout and
HTML5 is meant to specify every HTML feature that you need to
implement a browser than can handle the real-world Web. At this point,
anyone implementing a new browser engine would have to support
<keygen>. However, none of this rules out the possibility of putting
more advanced crypto functionality into browsers, either via HTML or a
separate spec. So I would recommend that you focus on promoting your
preferred solution rather than opposing <keygen>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg