test
<weiler> scribenick: jfontana
tony: start off with status of
recommendation
... turn it over to PLH
PLH: IF your AC rep has not
responded to the review, please do.
... only 4 respones so far
... not alarming but needs to pickup
... account team asking for members to participate in
announcement
tony: i checked with our
rep.
... nothing has come through.
PLH: I see some more coming
in
... reach out to me.
<weiler> who is Ken Buchanan?
PLH: anything to add to spec
jeffH: we have issues marked with
rec
... update my affiliation on the cover page would be
good.
... three are three editorial things that need to be
resolved.
<weiler> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3AREC
jeffH: we can punt two of them.
but need to do hardoced references #797
... that makes sure spec points to right things
... on HTML references I need ot look at those again.
... #1137 I wold like to have done. I will open a PR.
elundberg: #797 I willl look at that
plh: did we make any merge into Level 2
jeffH: no changes to repo
pjl: if you want to merge to 2, use V1 branch
jeffH: lets stay with calling it
Level 1
... we will use master branch as editor's draft and it will
eventually bump to Level 2
... I can do that.
Agreement
elundberg: closed #797
jeffH: on #996, we decided we can
let it ride.
... that is html referecnes, if fine, leave it alone
plh: yes, the message I got was keep it on
JeffH: level 1 Rec
plh: do that, but don't forget to
create the branch
... bikeshed understands level, so use that system
jeffH: current is tagged with
level 1. I will submit issues to create a level 2 editors
draft
... editors draft will become level 2 working draft.
... make level 1 branch today
christiaan: that sounds great.
plh: one more question
... there will be a level 2, anytihgn we can message about
level 2. What is next in terms of featres.
<weiler> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3AL2-WD-00
jeffH: one thing. an idea , we
have bunch o fissues and PRs that are marked level2. Look at
those and see what you think is interesting and let us
know.
... we are suppose to go through some of them on the call
today.
tony: OK. that takes us to next
agenda item.
... i posted notice last week or the week before. face to face
week of march 4
... two possible dates. they are during RSA conference. Google
will host on the 7th
christiaan: we have space
reserved. It will be on Thursday. 10am - 5pm.
... can we get a count.
<nsteele> +present
christiaan: I might send out an
email and
... get lunch at Google.
... any conflicts.....nothing
... I will send out the invite.
plh: that is great, it is on the
homepage of W3C.
... do we need page for the logistics.
tony: yes
... any other discussion on face to face. it will be a kickoff
for Level 2
... not hearing any discussion on face to face.
... go to issues. and look at PRs outstanding for level 2
... do we want to leave the other recs there. we still have
consistent terms ....these are ongoing.
jeffH: in terms of rec milestones, the ongong ones update milestone to level 2
tony: #1137 is the only one that
looks outstanding. JefH affiliation
... the others go to level 2
jeffH: sure.
tony: we also have some PR to
look at for Level 2 to get ready for the face to face. we have
21 outstanding.
... we hanv #1144 that might be a breaking change.
... can you explain #1144 PR
elundberg: from RP perspective,
if you want to be certain about things. there are corner cases
in the level 1 case. setting APPID may have issues and cause
false positive
... if RP sees true output it needs to know if level 1 or 2l
client
... with this change, all that happens is appID true means you
check...
selfissue: you are still making changes that are a braking change.
elundberg: the client sets the
output before it gets ?? from authenticator.
... the client would see u2f authenticator and it should return
true, but if they touch the web authN authenticator...
selfissue: i think the right
thing to do is fix the normative text.
... on elve 2
... that is actually what I proposed in #1143, it fixes the
normative language in Level 2
... #1144 goes a step further. in the end, because there is
this busted procedure, to be compatible you need to know two
clients exist
akshay: there return does not really matter. ... I would go for fixing the text instead of changing the value
elundberg: i thought this would be controversial, so this is okay
selfisseu: elundberg can you close #114
elundberg: yes.
tony: I think that is the only
breaking change, maybe one other issue, or issues that we
should discuss for level 2
... we have 4-5 of them, one has been open for awhile #889
JeffH: think we want to do this. there is a PR open. connected to issue #889
christiaan: hope this will get
merged when we go to level 2. It has been approved by multiple
people
... we did this is in CTAP at FIDO
jeffH: this raises point, we should go through issues and PR and see what is breaking and what is not. don't do it on the calll but keep your eyes open
christiaan: it wont break implementaion..
elundberg: it will influence clients
tony: it is breaking
agl: what is normal definition of "breaking"
tony: any code changes is what we described, should be say breaking clients, breaking authenticators
jeffh: should we not use these terms
jbradley: if something isn't changed will a component really break?
<jeffh> I meant that we should perhaps refine our terms
jbradley: would it be ignored if you didn't do something?
agk: I am happy with any terminology
tony: we also have #991. I think Shane is on the call.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/991
agl: this is something christiaan will want as well.
Chare: this is pretty simple. it's about registration, is it represented by a ??? credential?
agl: we have the same thoughts. we don't have a PR yet.
jeffH: I will craft such a
PR
... it is done.
Akshay: I think it is an
enhancement where we can do both. I think it is fine.
... all authenticators might not support, so I think it is a
good idea.
tony: we have #1004
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3AL2-WD-00
jeffh: we will try to fix it in CredMan
agl: we will not rename any fields in level 2. that is what I think is breaking
akshay: any thing other than public key... any other types
jeffh: I don't understand
akshay: all credentials have a type, it goes to CTAP and authenticator receives this . Question is do we add more key types in futre
jeffH: yes.
... it is more assertion type. for UAF yes.
agl: there is a password type in CredMan, also federate
christiaan: we have been
discussing how we consolidate these things
... it is getting hard and weird. how should this be
represented to a user
... how do we expose so this makes sense.
jeffH: agreed
akshay: agreed
jeffH: #1044
tony: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1044
agl: this is regarding the
generic transform an extension from JS objects into CBOR. i am
not too worried about it
... this issue is noting some ambiguities in that
transform.
elundberg: we are interested in experimenting with extensions that require the translation feature
agl: there are some other things
to consider in doing this.
... they type of the cbor could change based on the value
inputed
... we could do and not have a breaking change
jeffH: we don't have issue precisely
agl: I will write a comment in here now.
jeffH: also #1060
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1060
JeffH: this is related to that modest hairball we are working on to require resident credentials. perhaps address this one PR
tony: since you are writing it
can you pull it togehter.
... that takes us through the ones tagged as breaking
... can people go through these. I would appreciate.
... I would like to start a topic discussion for the face to
face.
... level 2 is planned out to Oct. timeframe. I thnk that is
when our charter runs out
... what do we do. proceed as normal or address it now.
plh: if we are going to revise,
we can and say we are working on level 2
... we should worry about this is mid june. we should have a
draft.
tony: OK
... anything else for today's call?
<ken> leave
adjorn
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) Present: agl jeffh akshay emil JamesBarclay jfontana KenEbert selfissued NickSteele PLH RaeHayward nadalin ShaneWeeden weiler elundberg christiaan jbradley KenBuchanan Found ScribeNick: jfontana Inferring Scribes: jfontana WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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]