<elundberg> scribenick: elundberg
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/922
I think this can be PR milestone
also see #921 and object if anyone doesn't like the choice of format
<jfontana> scribe?
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/924
this is literally a one word change, I think we can merge it right now
<jfontana> emil, want me to take over scribe?
jeffh: sounds fine
selfissued: I think we can merge #922
jeffh: agreed
<jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/912
<jfontana> toney: mike was going to look at this.
<scribe> scribenick: jfontana
selfissue: I don't see a need for this.
tony: close no action.
tony closes.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/920
elundberg: doing this would be a breaking change
selfissues: can't tell what part of spec he is trying to change
elundberg: asking if roaming
authenticator currently plugged in.
... this is about if use has an authenticator.
jeffH: it is specifically a roaming authenticator
jcj_moz: its more has this user
ever used web authn before
... point here, if user is valid that may want to be guided
into web authn
... i thing this is complicated.
thanks, sam
jcj_moz: this becomes another useful fingerprint. this user can or could use web authn
elundberg: is this same concern for platform authenticator
jcj_moz: yes, but that one is hard for tracking.
akshay: lets move this to next week...
jeffH: tony has assigned to level 2
elundberg: there is another issue in #575, there has been some discussion there on this leaking bit
agl: the last bit is pretty much redundant if you have the user agent.
jcj_moz: I agree with agl
... I will write some commentary on 920
tony: pull requests for PR, we have a few of them left.
look at #888
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/888
tony: looking to get Yuriey here as expert
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/899
tony: sam you are here as a
reviewer.
... no hurry, just a reminder
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/900
tony: we have had some review. some sign-offs
jeffH: looking at this and agl PR
that builds on it.
... will look at it over the next few days.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/901
tony: editorial change
... looks OK
... merge?
jeffH: I want to look
tony: wie will hold then
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/904
tony: jeffH you have comments
jeffH: yes, I want to look again.
elungberg: I have opened a PR into this one. I will add a link
jeffH: I have a comment on #575, I need to read it.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/908
jeffH: I have created a diff on this. we are messing with the algorithm here. I want to look closely
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/910
elundberg: OK with change, but more we need to do
KpaulH: I will look at this
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/913
jeffH: some checks were not successful here.
elundberg: I think they are
unrelated.
... I may merrge from master.
jeffH: I would do that.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/914
tony: some changes
requested.
... selfissue has you re-reviewdd.
selfissue: no
... I want a clear explanation.
jeffH: I want to review
tony: don't merge until jeffH reviews.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/918
agl: I don't think bitcoin should be supported
selfissue: this has nothing to do
with bitcoin. our apps are independent.
... this was defined well before bitcoin existed.
adl: bit coin is only user
agl
selfissue: Verified Claims group
using this.
... in a non-standard way
tony: they do have verifiable claim spec out there.
agl: they should not be using these curves.
selfissue: per discussion on PR. I committed weeks ago to registering curves and algorithms and this is part of that.
agl: I am saying then you should ignore me.
selfissue: it is nice to have you consent.
agl abstaining.
selfissue: can I merger and submit.
tony: yes.
... that takes us through the PRs. Any to go back to?
... if not we can look at the issues.
... look at issues? any to discuss?
jeffH: I need time to digest them first. I am fine to get time
gmandyam: why weren't the ECDAA algorithms defined in the FIDO spec registered?
apowers: they are not as straight forward.
JeffH: I don't think that is the
reason.
... FIDO spec has IANA......to register those algorithms
apowers: I thnk it is already a
spec
... who is IANA person
jeffH: go to IANA.org and figure out how it is done.
selfissue: this is on my to-do
list
... issue for this? so I can see what I am being asked to
do
gmandyam: I will file one
<weiler> Here's the https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment
<weiler> ... the link for IANA registration.
selfissue: IANA is the easy part,
I need to know the specific algorithms
... these are in the FIDO spec.
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) Present: gmandyam jcj_moz kpaulh wseltzer weiler apowers akshay elundberg jeffh selfissued nadalin jfontana agl Found ScribeNick: elundberg Found ScribeNick: jfontana Inferring Scribes: elundberg, jfontana Scribes: elundberg, jfontana ScribeNicks: elundberg, jfontana WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2018May/0389.html Found Date: 30 May 2018 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 WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]