JC returns to the fold

welcome back!!

<weiler> scribenck: jfontana

tony: FIDO interop going well. turning out to be well-done.
... get a report after it finishes up this week.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1031

jeffH: some minor fixes here. I can fix and merge

tony: OK

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1032

tony: no issues

jefH: I will merge.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1036

tony: needs some review

jeffH: I will review

tony: akshay should take a look at this
... lets go to the issues.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1022

tony: shawn is not on the lilne
... go to #1042

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1042

tony: close it or someone adds statement to call out....
... if someone wants to handle it, that is good. or we can punt until V2
... what do we want to do?
... should we assign it to elundberg
... assign it to elundberg

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1043

tony: we have already decided on this one. not sure this is something we plan to handle

selfissue: 1043? let me have a look

tony: it is web authn and CTAP symmetry

selfissue: I have note reviewed. asign to me and I will review. if it is duplicate, I will close.

tony: I will leave it un-triaged.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1044

tony: CBOR issue.
... think this would be a breaking change if this is true
... it might change people's implementations.

jeffH: we need to define a value. issue is there is no limint

akshay: i don't think this is breaking
... I will close this. It does not make sense.

jc_jones: It does seem like this issue should be re-opened on CBOR

jeffH: we define our own canonical serialization

jc_jones: it is a good point. may issue here is ...I don't know if we should try to quash all canonicalization
... maybe here we should refer to something else. another doc published by someone else or us.
... I don't feel we need section in 9.6 that is all the rules for CBOR to JScript .....
... we did not define to it is ambiguous. But I don't think it is breaking
... don't think we have any extension that would run into this.

tony: i am saying it is potentially breaking.

jc_jones: we may need another document. on CBOR and JScript...

tony: that is not really our job

jeffH: other thing to consider is quote from #749, has a may in it.

jc_jones: sure. but leads to we have to better define what happens
... I learn about these issues nibbling us to death.
... if we address we need to do it in another document.

jeffH: that is like punting this

jc_jones: exactly

tony: how about moving this to another level. this one we will punt a little bit.
... this takes use through the un-truaged issues. now on to the issues

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/360

jeffH: token binding. let's punt on discussing it.

tony: it is still in the spec. and does not mean just that some are not implementing that it is dead.

jeffH: as I noted 27 days ago. these aspects of the ... on token binding got lost and I've talked with Google about this and something could be added to say this is how you do it
... it should supply whatever we can get done.
... I have not taken a stab at this. I did review on fetch patch. I don't think it has been looked at.
... this is one to try and chip away at and make progress.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/360

jeffH: need to do it.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/462

tony: ongoing.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/578

scribe:

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/704

jeffH: that is editorial to take care of before PR.

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/733

jeffH: ball in their court

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/733

jeffH: we were going to punt over to cred man

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1004

jeffH: i need to open an issue on cred man

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1014

jeffH: PR is open and it should be closed when we merge....

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1040

emil working on

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1042

tony: in discussion
... we have editorial issues to clean up, kind of deadline next week to close or move to next level.
... if we want to wrap this up so people can get implementations in products this year.
... so we need some TLC to get these editorial issues done.
... so next week we will see what we can close and then decide what we might move or have to shift dates on PR.
... any other questions? if not, we are done.

jc_jones: I am catching up as quickly as i can and i intend to be useful.
... any updates on CTAP support in FFox?
... I have a branch started.

jbradley: lovely branch is good sign on progress.
... I can help test if needed.

tony: adjorn.

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: jcj_moz jeffh weiler Akshay LukeWalker jfontana Rolf selfissued nadalin wseltzer emil John_Bradley Ketan
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana
Inferring Scribes: jfontana

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2018Aug/0276.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 22 Aug 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.)