tony: Next week. No
meeting.
... the time change poll closed on Monday.
... looks like there was some objection to move it to noon, but
it was only two people.
... only person we might lose in a tim echange would be
Rolf.
... we don't want to lose Rolf. but we will move the call to
noon PDT in two weeks.
elundberg: can I reserve the right to change?
tony: yes.
<wseltzer> [+2 hours from current time]
wendy: if needed we will send new webex
tony: who is in prague next week?
jeffH: I will be
prague is IETF meeting
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/909
Tony: assume we are on hold here. some CTAP work to do here, it's on hold.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1095
jeffH: I need to do some work here.
tony: should reviewers look at this or are you re-doing
jeffH: mumble
tony: should we spend time on
this
... JC, Akshay can you look at this?
jeffH: it is nominally the same,
but I have not looked at it in a while.
... if there is huge rush, AGL has signed off on this and we
can merge.
Akshay: I will look at it
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1159
tony: needs review
aksay: will look this week.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1161
alexie: looking at this
tony: adam and akshay have looked at this.
audio issues
agl: #1161. JC comments on are valid, the link does not exist yet. so this is not ready yet.
tony: trying to dial back in
jcj_moz: this is not chicken and egg thing, this link. just need web master to file link to webauth-2
<jcj_moz> we're looking for https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/ to become real
wendy: I will poke at W3C to get the link
jeffH: we need the first level 2 working draft
wendy: without the draft, we can't have a link to it.
jcj_moz: OK, I will not fight
about it.
... does not look like it will be a stale patch. the rest of
the links are all good
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1161
agl: jc ha sapproved this. akshay do you want to loook
akshay: yes.
alexei: I want to merge
#1170
... I just fnisihed it it is basically de-dupe instruction to
verify safety net. says go to official safety net page. It is
Adam's suggestion
HeffH: this is un-triaged.
tony: let's put it into this working draft.
jeffH: alexei is assigned to this.
alexei: I am merging.
tony: what was the other one #1185?
agl: yes it should be in the list. it was tagged incorrectly.
jcj_moz: it is approved by 4 people and should be merged.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1168
tony: emil do you have something on this one.
elundberg: the steps for
verifying android keys is missing
... it clarifies where things come from
... looking at the Diff. yes, just clarification
jeffH: looks good to me.
tony: move it into first draft
jeffH: yes.
tony: need some more reviewers. AGL look at it.
agl: I approved it given its small size.
jeffH: I looked at it
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1184
akshay: ready to merge?
... still on 1168
elundberg: I will merger #1168
back to #1184
jeffH: I would like to
review
... can't do it on the call.
agl: tagging this QD-01
WD-10
WD-01
tony: this takes us through the
PRs we had.
... issues.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/863
agl: kim is working on it
tony: can you see when ETA is?
agl: yes
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/872
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/973
tony: akshay have you looked at h=this.
akshay: will look.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/978
elundberg: PR is open
jeffH: did we already talk about the PR. then we dont need to talk about the issue
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/991
shane: there is question on the proposal. my comment, we can encapsulate the requirement from Christiaan, ....JeffH might weigh in on this.
elundberg: probably fine to do this with this one options
shane: I can take a crack at it. I need permission
tony: you should have it.
jeffh: I can help Shane to put together a PR
shane: I need some advice on the processing algorithm for clients
jeffH: create a new branch in github and I will take a look
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/996
JeffH: this is just editorial
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1004
jeffH: this stays open. need to work with CredMan
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1060
elundberg: think this is dupe of #991
tony: what do you want to do with this.
jeffH: in reviewing #911, review this along with it.
tony: leave this open
jeffH: yes
... the issues are crosslinked, so we are not losing track
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1088
tony: goes back to attestation
elundberg: also has a PR open
jeffH: skip
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1099
jeffH: it is a minor to do editorial item
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1122
jeffH: I have to see if this is addressed. need to verify
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1147
jeffH: it is open and being discussed
agl: I thought this was in CTAP
and not Web Authn land.
... feedback I got was individual attestation is
preferred
... so pre reg. is aweb authn concept. need to decide it is a
security key. need to track back to the chip.
... web authn change not required, need FIDO to figure out its
stance on CTAP2
tony: leave it open and go from there.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1149
jeffH: related to #991
shane: if we put some data in resident key requirements....could satify Christiaan requirement.
jeffH: i linked back to #911
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1153
elundberg: has a PR we discussed.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1166
jeffH: this is an editorial
cleanup. we at least shold have note to describe this issue or
fix Web IDL, but that would be breaking change
... this note that these are web authn extensitons, that
encompass authenticator extensions. .
... put a note it if we do not want to break IDL.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1174
jeffH: I will fix the labels on
this. and some implementation considerations.
... maybe some privacy...
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1179
jeffH: editorial clean-up
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1180
jeffH: just another editorial clean-up.
tony: that is last we had. any other questions.
jeffH: do we have some tri-age to do.
heffH: there are four to deal with
#1169
elundberg: looks like bug report for Fido 2 server
tony: don't think we have a label for this
jeffH: we need to copy this
... need an action item to copy over to FIDO land
elunberg: I can do that
#1175
jeffH: standardizing support for authenticators
elundberg: this is discussion in #1027
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1175
adding link to previous https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1169
back to #1175
elundberg: so do we need any technical changes to the spec?
nick: I can respond to this
person
... we have done some work here.
jeffH: so you will reply in the
issue.
... that would be great.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1178
elundberg: has self assigned it and opened a PR.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1183
jeffH: it is labeled with
process
... i have not looked at it.
jcj_moz: this is about
tidiness
... important thing is the tools.
elundberg: if there has been a discussion, then OK.
RRAAgent, bye
<wseltzer> rrwsagent, draft minutes
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) Default Present: jfontana, nsteele, jbarclay, pranjal, elundberg, ken, jeffh, christiaan, agl, sweeden, akshay, sbweeden, jcj_moz, Callum_May Present: jfontana nsteele jbarclay pranjal elundberg ken jeffh christiaan agl sweeden akshay sbweeden jcj_moz Callum_May nadalin wseltzer No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana Inferring Scribes: jfontana WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2019Mar/0215.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: 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]