<jfontana> scribenick: jfontana
<wseltzer> Nadalin: We will send F2F agenda to list
<wseltzer> christiaan: 22 people responded to F2F, 20 planning to attend
tony: when to annoucne
plh: planning to release on March
4. First day of RSA Conferene.
... don't know who has seen the press release draft
... won't move ahead to March 4
tony: I have seen an older draft, but not a re-fresh.
PLH: that is the current situation
tony: any questions on dates?
none
tony: Face to face. March 7 . Google offices.
the office is in San Francisco. Check the address.
tony: look at PRs last week and assigned them to draft 1 or 2 for level 2
<wseltzer> WebAuthn Face-to-face
tony: so we have the ones were
closed were #1130. look slike that has been approved.
... anything else on #1130. it is an editorial change.
elundberg: some outstanding discussion of #1131, and they will merge
tony: JeffH has some work to do on #1131
elundberg: he had some comments,
but no reply
... we can merge /31130
#1130
tonuy: we got mikes issues
resolved last week.
... stilll waiting for JC to look at it.
... #1142 Akshay would look at this.
selfissue: can we go back to #1130. it is not a breaking change
akshay: this PR is just to say what is there in level 1, not related to what might be enabled in Lvel 2
tony: I believe we are good
... #1142
akshay: looks good to me. can you merge.
#1143https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1143
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1143
tony: elundberg can look at
#1159
... put together a review list. elundberg can you merge when
they agree.
... anymore ope PR for draft level 1 epople want to talk
about?
none
tony: no un-triaged issues. so
lets go to issues.
... start with oldest. we hvae #80 and #199
... there has not been real progress on #199. I don't think it
will pop up anything for the first draft.
agl: some issues for web authn in browser extensions. Maybe people are still interested.
tony: we talked a little about htis last week
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/227
tony: not barn burner. onging issue
#245 https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/245
tony: is this still valid
agl: think this is obsolete.
selfissue: we should close this.
tony: I will put a comment in and we can ask him to close. JeffH is not on calll
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/334
tnoy: not sure this one is ....I will boot this one off. we can work on it later.
tony: close #391
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/441
tony: this is ongoing. this is closed one.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/445
tony: do we still want to do this.
agl: next three are all similar. we do not have a desire now to make bespoke? or more specific
tony: anybody else have a
comment...
... leave them open, punt them to draft 2, or think about
closing or not with no action.
agl: I would say close them
akshay. #445, #446, #447 I am not a big fan of these.
scribe: we many not implent.
tony: I will close this issue. any objections.
none
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/465
tony: assume this is partly for UAF?
rolf: I am interested in this .
tony: solve for first draft?
rolf: I am fine with 2nd draft.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/478
elundberg: looks like duplicate
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/524
agl: punting to draft 2. looks like a cleanup,
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/863
tony: think was passed to
akshay
... can aksay document what Edge is doing it is ok for Levl
1
... leave at level one
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1004
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1123
elundberg: corresponds to ...
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1147
agl: yes, for draft 1
<wseltzer> [nadalin departs]
<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
jfontana: 1147, keep as draft 1?
agl: yes, CTAP2 work is concurrent
jfontana: 1149
elundberg: I don't think we want
to go with forbidden, discussing semantics
... probably some version for draft 1
jfontana: leave at 1
... 1153?
elundberg: close, per PR
1156
... close 1155
jfontana: any objections?
none
scribe: 1160
elundberg: a travis
regression
... not a feature issue
jfontana: any others people want
to address?
... 1039?
agl: guessing it's draft 2 unless someone creates a PR
jfontana: move to draft 2
... 1044?
agl: it's not a draft 1 issue
jfontana: 1049? Move to draft 2. 1060??
shane: I'm interested in seeing this resolved
jfontana: 1061?
... another JeffH issue
agl: we want to see it, but won't
block draft 1 on it
... suggest we move it to 2
jfontana: 1064?
elundberg: low priority
jfontana: move to draft 2
... 1088?
elundberg: move to draft 2, as it has issue comments
jfontana: move it to draft
2
... 1099?
agl: PR welcome, non-blocking, draft 2
jfontana: 1100? editorial
selfissued: JeffH needs to do this
akshay: Let's do it at 2
jfontana: move it to 2
... 1101?
agl: think that's also draft 2
jfontana: any objection?
... 1105? JC
elundberg: advice to RPs to detect clickjacking. probably a good thing, but not normative so non-blocking
agl: draft 2, unless JC is motivated to do it earlier
Rolf: did we need intersection
observer for iframe support?
... a precondition to iframe support
... I'm ok with draft 2
jfontana: let's get JC to review
it
... leave at 1 for now
... 1107?
... a suggestion, draft 2?
... any objection?
agl: I wonder if we should just
close
... removal of security key doesn't make sense for NFC, BLE,
and not even sure we should expose for USB
jfontana: any objection to
closing?
... close 1107
... 1117?
... leave at 1 with PR open (1118)
... 1122?
elundberg: might be addressed, get JeffH's opinion
jfontana: 1123?
elundberg: we did this one already
jfontana: Page 2
... 867?
agl: close
jfontana: any objections to closing?
agl: we have another issue around
how fast things fail. that's a clearer description
... let's close this one
jfontana: close.
... 872
... selfissued, you looked at it recently?
selfissued: JeffH should create a PR
jfontana: leave at draft 1
... 876?
agl: tracking bug doesn't strike me as draft 1
jfontana: any opposition to draft
2? no
... 911?
Rolf: keep it draft 1 and ask JC
john_bradley: for groups like
Payments, iframe is critically important
... but also, external dependencies
jfontana: leave at 1
... 929?
... leave at 1
... 931?
elundberg: quite substantial, don't expect by 1
agl: agreed, 2
jfontana: move to 2
... 968?
elundberg: mostly done judging by
PRs
... get apowers or yuriy to review
... I'll add a comment
jfontana: 969?
... looks involved. D2?
agl: suspect it's too large for 1
Rolf: not sure what it does. Sync private keys from one device to another?
agl: close until someone can come back with a more concrete proposal?
Rolf: I'm fine with closing
akshay: I think we haven't
discussed either way. Would like to talk with Alexei
... not 1 or 2
jfontana: move to draft 2
... I'll make a note of what we've missed. Let's adjourn
[adjourned]
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/we/We will send F2F agenda to list/ Succeeded: i/look at PRs/Topic: Open Level 2 Pull Requests and Issues Succeeded: s/a spoke/bespoke/ Succeeded: s/11@@/1156/ Succeeded: s/1060/1049? Move to draft 2. 1060?/ Succeeded: s/wendy, so we are set up?/scribenick: jfontana/ Succeeded: s/level/draft/ Succeeded: s/111*/1118/ Succeeded: s/... 1123?/jfontana: 1123?/ Present: Christiaan agl Akshay elundberg ken david_waite plh jfontana nadalin selfissued pamela_dingle Rolf shane_weeden john_bradley Found ScribeNick: jfontana Found ScribeNick: wseltzer Inferring Scribes: jfontana, wseltzer Scribes: jfontana, wseltzer ScribeNicks: jfontana, wseltzer Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2019Feb/0171.html 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: 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]