See also: IRC log
present=
nadalin: trying to get to an
implementation draft
... 8 PRs, review the priority: implementation ones
... then any others people feel must absolutely be in
implementation draft
... not waiting until it's perfect for implementation draft,
since we want feedback from implementers and developers
jeffh: 5 PRs now open
... others closed or marked for CR
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3AWD-05
nadalin: start with 379
<gmandyam> Where is implementation draft defined in current W3C process? - see https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Reports
angelo: we don't need that urgently
nadalin: other implementers?
jcj_moz: fine slipping from this release
alexei: ok to push to next WD
JeffH: fine by me
<angelo> We are talking about 379. Alexei, J.C., Angelo, and Jeff are ok with waiting until next WD
nadalin: 427
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/427
jeffh: jeffrey and I were talking about a few changes
jyasskin: some details about how
transport is dealt with
... fine to merge parts
... not critical to get by implementation draft
giri: there's no "implmentation draft" in Process
<angelo> Implementation draft is not part of W3C. We are going to snap something in between.
nadalin: we're trying to get that
as an in-between snap-to stage
... can still change before CR
... but it will be harder to justify breaking changes later
jcj_moz: Mozilla is ok with that
process
... re 427, it's not material for WD-05, as we won't have
multiple transports
angelo: ok for us
alexei: getting implmentation will help us figure out what should happen
nadalin: move this one to
WD-06
... 429
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/429
angelo: people seem on-board with
the idea
... can we get consent on the call to merge?
nadalin: alexei and jeffH requested changes
angelo: look like editorial
... I think I can address them
jyasskin: substance looks right
nadalin: can we get agreement to do the merge if angelo makes changes today?
gmandyam: can we propose changes re selection criteria?
@@: this PR adds one specific selection criteria
gmandyam: add dictionary
@@: this PR only adds one, as a side effect, cleans up the API by making it a dictionary
scribe: if you have issues with the creation of dictionary, put them in this PR
gmandyam: Qualcomm objects if we
can't consider other criteria
... e.g. adding criteria for RP to select authenticator
enclave
@@: I'm ok adding more things, just as a separate PR for the next WD
gmandyam: then move the attachment out, and just create the dictionary
@@: the attachment is already there, this just moves it
gmandyam: make it an empty dictionary, then address parameters separately
@@: this one was already in the spec, we just didn't know where
gmandyam: please record Qualcomm's objection
selfissued: we've been talking
about this feature for weeks
... we should discuss each individual feature
independently.
nadalin: I didn't hear an
objection to the approach; but that it didn't contain
everything you want
... we've generalized the approach to make it extensible
gmandyam: but we'll be arguing as each one is added
@@: don't you want each element discussed on its merits?
scribe: I think that's what we're doing, but the two criteria under discussion were already in the API
gmandyam: I'm not blocking the
merge
... I think we shouldn't be debating each criterion in a
separate PR
... so can I propose more in this PR?
selfissued: we already had those two; nothing stops you from proposing another
nadalin: Agreement that once angelo updates 429, he can merge it
JeffH: 426, fix the figure
nadalin: 432
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/432
JeffH: Mike West pushed us, if we're going to rename, do so sooner rather than later
rolf: looked like straightforward search-and-replace
jcj_moz: I like calling it public key, because it is
JeffH: should we punt to WD-06 and query the TAG?
@@: aligned with Credential Management
angelo: my worry, we change everything, then the WG decides there's a better name, and then we have to change again
jcj_moz: I'm not going to propose further rename; when I have to explain "scoped credential", I always explain it as public key
alexei: I just want to merge
nadalin: Any objection to merge?
<Rolf> no objection to merge
nadalin: , and please, never change it again
<apowers> do it! do it! ;)
nadalin: hearing no objections, merge it
<apowers> is it time to write tests now?
nadalin: that gets us through the
open WD-05 PRs
... any other priority: implementation that have to be in
WD-05?
... for this week or early next
JeffH: I have some
... dealing with origin and RPID
... do we need them for WD-05, implementers?
... 255, 259, 260
... where we talk about origin; right now the spec is
inconsistent
angelo: tuple vs hostname not a problem for edge
jeffh: if I were implementing, I'd want to clear up that ambiguity
@@: same-orgin code serializes the origin, not just the host
jcj_moz: specify serializing the origing, rather than leaving undefined?
jeffh: do we want the relaxing
the host option?
... Do we want to polish it for WD-05 or -06?
@@: 06. We haven't yet worked on the relaxing part
jcj_moz: I'll have more thoughts further in
nadalin: we'll mark this as WD-06
jeffh: I'll work on that
nadalin: 259 and 260 too?
jeffh: yes
... moving all of those to -06
nadalin: any other priority implemntation issues that people feel need to be covered?
gmandyam: question on attestation
verification
... do we need normative procedures from RP perspective?
@@: should be written down somewhere
gmandyam: could be non-normative
guidance to RPs
... normative could raise conflicts
@@: section 6 should call out to other specs. Don't think it's critical to fix for WD-05
nadalin: issue 412?
alexei-goog: we have 2 fields, RawID and ID, confusing
jyasskin: wait on sorting this out
nadalin: ok
... Can we delcare WD-05 and get this published?
... any objections?
<jeffh> so we are going to punt #412 to WD-06?
nadalin: we'll publish it and
point people to it
... reminder, no call next week
[adjourned]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/alexei/jyasskin/ Default Present: wseltzer, nadalin, selfissued, gmandyam, jyasskin, jcj_moz, battre, apowers, kpaulh, jeffh, alexei-goog, rolf, jfontana Present: alexei-goog apowers gmandyam jcj_moz jeffh jyasskin kpaulh nadalin selfissued wseltzer rolf jfontana No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: wseltzer Inferring Scribes: wseltzer WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2017May/0035.html Got date from IRC log name: 03 May 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/03-webauthn-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]