<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

<apowers> https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-uaf-v1.1-ps-20170202/fido-ecdaa-algorithm-v1.1-ps-20170202.html#iana-considerations

<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.)