<scribe> scribenick: weiler
jcj: we should close this.
jc: I recommend to close this with no action.
<jcj_moz> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1045
jeff: one could argue that we should explain this better. don't need to do it now.
jc: not sure what we'd say - "if you're implementing for other-than-browser..."
rolf: that would help
jc: then maybe we should get it
in.
... where to put it?
Rolf: intro.
jc: I'll do it.
jeff: is theere a link for MS's approach?
jc: I don't think we should link
to only one platform....
... if we don't have MS, then don't link at all.
Akshay: I'll try to find
one.
... I'd make this a level 2 thing.
jfontana: we'll wait for that link and resolve this.
akshay: if no link, then level 2
jfontana: will you put this in 1045 or a new PR?
akshay: 1045
export definitions.
jeff: this is ongoing editorial.
to help other specs with auto cross-reference.
... no need to do this right now.
[discussion of how standard this is]
jeff: I wouldn't do this now.
maybe for rec.
... could do export by default.
rolf: this is non-normative. can do it at a later stage.
jfontana: seems like something we should do, but not now.
jeffh: change it to the rec milestone.
akshay: links change all the time... I think we should not have links, just "see platform guide"
jfontana: jc?
jc: i put some text in. i'll do the PR today.
akshay: I like this text
jfontana: 14 other issues.
jeffh: ongoing stuff....
akshay: push this to Rec milestone.
jeffh: +1
jfontana: this is ongoing tracking issue
weiler: it shouldn't stop
progress
... might be good to fill in links to where we asked for
reviews.
jeffh: @@ Would be good to get
feedback from chrome and edge. we've been intending since early
Aug to just punt on this for proposed rec.
... we need to figure out if this will block going to
rec.
... it is technical changes to the spec.
jc: we should go ahead, but I
don't know what to write.
... logically, firefox copies as soon as process starts
jeffh: algs don't say to do that,
which is what boris is objecting to.
... this is a normative change.
... do we have wiggle room?
akshay: we can't do normative changes now.
wendy: if we had a sense of how
it should it, we could put in a non-normative example, if that
would help implementers to match.
... or leave it undefined. but a normative change would require
back to CR.
jeffh: obviously firefox edge and chrome are doing something.
akshay: @3
jeffh: someone needs to figure out how to navigate this.
weiler: does the constraint for non-normative helps make it clearer what to write?
jc/jeff: yeah
weiler: since it's non-normative, do we hold PR for it, or does it wait?
wendy: if we want boris to see it at AC review, then do it now
jfontana: JC, will you try to write this?
jfontana: move to level 2
jeffh: push to rec / ongoing.
jeffh: i need to file an issue with whatwg; the best thing we can do is a non-normative comment. if UA supports token binding, then do some magic to get your hands on the token binding ID.
jfontana: jeff, will you do it?
jeff: let's deal with it now, so people can review it.
wendy: expectation is that PR
will become the Rec.
... we should get everything into it
akshay: so push to level 2 or resolve now?
wendy: yes, unless super-editorial, like typos.
<wseltzer> [or markup]
jeff: punt. and other things we're pushing off should likely also go to level 2.
jeff: not user-visible. make it level 2 / doesn't matter.
jeffh: wendy? Sam?
jeff: hard timeout disappeared?
akshay: correct
... I don't know what to write here.. too many unknowns
<wseltzer> https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#discover-from-external-source
jeffh: could add an implementaion consideration... offer such users opportunity to tweak timeouts.
rolf: maybe reference w3c spec on this?
jeff: I'll look at it. may not be 'til end of week.
wendy: can we just say "consider cognitive accessibility in setitng timeout values"
jeffh: here and in getassertion
akshay: i'll submit the PR
today.
... can someone else suggest text?
jeffh: I'll put some in the issue.
jeffh: this needs to get done by
rec
... but these are credman changes
wseltzer: webappsec is interested
in splitting credman to fix this
... we can give that to the director as the assurance that it
will work okay.
weiler: put it at rec
jfontana: this looks like credman, too.
wendy: let's make sure issues are filed v. credman
jfontana: ask jeff to do that.
akshay: arnar needs to sort this
[several people not sure re: this one]
weiler: leave it at PR while other PR issues resolve. if nothing happens, move it to L2.
(again)
jc: I opened the PR.
... should we be more clear that it's a reocmmendation - make
it a "note"?
... I'm fine with it as-is.
akshay: I'm fine with i.
<Rolf> I agree: PR is ok IMHO.
PR1073
[no issues; jc will merge]
jfontana: still five open issues.
weiler: who has the action for creating the PR tarball.
akshay: adam did that.
adam: I already called "not
it".
... but I can do it.
weiler: wait 'til the issues clear
adam: a week from Friday is my last day at FIDO. At amzn after that; could be crazy after that.
jfontana: let's aim for Friday.
wseltzer: unlikely that the director will give us one-day turnaround.
akshay: i'll do 733.. 360 is jeff. 1022 - wait for arnar or push to l2
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.153 of Date: 2018/09/19 14:40:21 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/on/all/ Succeeded: s/red/rec/ Present: elundberg Rolf weiler jfontana jcj_moz LukeWalker Ketan Akshay jeffh Found ScribeNick: weiler Inferring Scribes: weiler Found Date: 19 Sep 2018 People with action items: 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]