tony: meeting is to discuss the extension issue that came up last week

been 4-6 trying to get to PR

scribe: trying to get extensions to meet interop criteria
... last week it was brought up to potentially keep extensions non-normative and optional
... WG there was no consensus on the calll.. we took it ot the list . I am not hearing consensus to change the current postion
... I asked PLH to join
... do we need to split the doc like Google suggested, or do we want to change the status and try to meet the requirements to keep normative and options

PLH: seems premature at thism time to change thinking on exteions

tony: your thoughts on if we did change directions and have extensions are non-normative would document have to be split or single doc

PLH: allof those solutions would work. in past director has advised where to put the these.
... it is trade off of not putting in L1, but keepin it as one doc.
... and of course if you put them in spearate dco, that is possible.

jbradley: could we leave it as one document mark the extensions other than AppID, as non -mormative in one doc
... and once we have intero with V2 can we then mark those are normative.

PLH: yes.

jbradley: if we list as non-normative, we could take doc to PR

PLH: we tried to ask waiver from director that did not work. we could escalate, but yes marking as non-normative would unblock
... having said that there was separate question, which was on...
... there wer two quetions, som information we have not been able to gather. the other is the web platform test. the group did not take a postion on those tests.
... did we try to run them.

tony: basically asking there has been some submissions to the list, besides Google, I have not seen any change in direction from others
... some want status quo., some not bothered, but at this point not seeing any consensus to change the current position

jbradley: suspect some has to do with how long to get thorugh the process with current decision
... the current position if we could get it done tomorrow they would agree. but if it is a year, maybe not

tony: the other thing, is anything going to potentially chagne. could be chances of people trying to submit non-normative change requests.
... to the current draft. that could caseu some churn and problems
... that is under our control
... saying the spec is bascially locked at this time instead of these changes.
... if anyone was developing there would be no changes to the specification.
... so the document would not change
... if not in rush to change status, but if people want to change status, we may have a emergency.
... the ony change will be extensions being marked non-normative.
... is there an urgency?

PLH: we will keep trying to get info from FIDO,
... can we figure out the status on the extensions data
... we are getting the platform tests. should we continue to look at them

the web platform tests

scribe: do you have any idea how relevant those tests are.

tony: we have discussed the tests for the interop, but nothing as the extensions are concerned.

jbradly: this is a different question from the esxtensions.
... in some repositories is there web authn tests and we have looked at them and discussed.
... I don't know if they are relevant.

<wseltzer> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webauthn

PLH: we nknow google worked on them, but what I am hearing is you guys have not looked at those tests.

tony: we looked at the interop tests.
... that is what Adam had produced for the interop.

PLH: but that is not in the Web test. I will see if there is concern being raised, if not I will tell the director it is good

tony: I think we need a call lwith Yuriey and Rae and try to get to what we need from extenison perspective.

N.Steele: FIDO wilb be hosting an interop ---at the end of January to touch base. we might want to talk to get a better answer sooner

<wseltzer> [Rae notes in chat that it's actually Feb 18-20, 2019]

tony: I am not hearing any change in direction

<wseltzer> [and notes that her audio isn't working]

PLH: I see we are good for today. At this point it is too late for PR now ..Looking at late January or early Feb.

tony: will work with W3c to try to resolve thi s issue in the next few weeks.
... thanks everyone.
... next weeks meeting, proposing to cancel meeting

jfontana: I think what PLH is proposing, to get togeher with FIDO and see if they have what we need, or make clear what we need is the right diretion to go in.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/in Feb/Feb 18-20, 2019/
Succeeded: s/PHL/PLH/G
Present: wseltzer plh jfontana John_Bradley Pasan steele gmandyam Nadalin ken_ebert jeffh Rae
Regrets: jcj_moz
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana
Inferring Scribes: jfontana

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Found Date: 05 Dec 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.)