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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]