<jcj_moz> relevant mozilla position re: feature-policy (jeffh) https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/24
sorry, technical difficulties for first 15 minutes.
i'm back
Discussion for apst 15 minutes has been on features policy
jcj_MOZ: lsorry for missteps here. it was a good learning opp.
tony: looks like we don't have a path forward with Feature Path
jcj_moz: not really, we have two paths, we have to look at them and we need wider comments.
tony: maybe getting use cases out
of web payments group will help
... we should find things out at TPAC
... we will discuss with EMVco and web payments group before
our Friday meeeting
... any other general discussions
<jcj_moz> also per earlier, my reply to Adam / Blink-Dev about Feature Policy state is here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/NB6BMfcyKok/L-rOFJjvAQAJ
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/966
akshay: did we move to different draft
toy: yes.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/966
agl: I need to do a review
jeffH: i need re-review
tony: so does akshay
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1256
akshay: I asked edge team. they will review probably this week.
jcj_moz: we had our tester go
through this. he said this is super cool
... he also said it would not be a security hole
... makes me happyt
... he needs to go back through Nina's slides.
nina: thanks for the feedback
tony: does this use permissions.
nina: no. web driver
jcj_moz: web dirver is pretty cool.
tonuy: i will take another look
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1264
agl: I have a PR open to address feedback
jcj_moz: should merge after #1268 PR 1275
tony: it has not been triaged.
jcj_moz: they both need to be in the same revision.
tony: can add lightning support, DOM string
jcj_moz yes.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1270
tony: sitll in review
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1272
agl: i need to tweek some
things
... I will do that and come back
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1276
jeffH: has to do with feature
policy
... it also depends on changes in CredMan
... that is the spec that one needs to tweek for Feature Policy
enablement
jcj_moz: we don't need to hold this up. concern is taking this to final spec before we resolve Feature Policy issues
jeffH: this should wait until we have a clean PR on CredMan
elundberg: needs a block label
jeffH: there it is
tony: JC would your opinion apply
to earlier issue.
... you don't want it to go further than CR until Feature
Policy is OK
jcj_moz: yes.
... our issues with Feature Policy is not that big.
... concerned about good practice. not sure where people want
to use it in HTTP header
... http layer
agl: i am not going to sign on to this until it is ready
jcj_moz: i think the right things are happening.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1275
jcj_moz: this will let us avoid
future breakage
... agl what you wrote looks good, but I need to go through the
document.
agl: this is only dealing with the transport strings.
tony: akshay have you looked.
akshay: not yet.
tony: that takes us through all
the open PRs.
... jump to untriaged issues.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1273
tony: what do we do here? I think the spec is incorrect, but we are not addressing because it has not been implemented
agl: we could eliminate thought there is passthrough
tony: should we remove
... this was an early thing Giri wanted.
selfissue: I think first version of text was written by Rolf
tony: yes
jeffH: notion was extensions implemented by authenticators.
agl: not gung-ho to take out.
selfissue: not clear we need a fix.
tony: do we get rid of this extension
jcj_moz: we would have to clarity what to do with specific types
tony: what do we do?
... WD-03
jcj_moz: I think we need to fix in 02
tony: by clarifying the documentation?
jcj_moz: either pass through values or not pass through
tonuy: we assign it to wd-02 and Mike write what you said and mark it editorial
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1274
tony: this is brave browser
... code rules not the documentation
... jeffH can you fix
jeffH: i think I can
tony: that takes us over the
un-triaged issues
... anything to discuss before me move to issues?
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1277
agl: I am in favor of changing this string now
jeffH: i can start to get it changed.
tony: you are OK with publickeyCred
jcj_moz: yes.
<jcj_moz> I am OK with publickeycred
tonuy: jeffH, you will take it over to credman
jeffH: yes.
tony: any issues we need to still discuss.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1268
jcj_moz: Goolge blog seems to say they are using an Enum not is spec.
agl: it's in the spec
... i agree. the enum is in there for a while and we did not
see it
jcj_moz: you are using user agent checking
agl: yes.
jcj_moz: this is why we need to merge the fix
agl: I am pretty sure we will not break anything
akshay: do RPs have to change?
agl: not if it doesn't break
jcj_moz: If RPs may have to make changes.
elundberg: I think our java library will have to make changes.
jcj_moz: there are a bunch of enums that may be problematic
akshay: do we change this one now and look at the others.
agl: we could go through and DOM string all of them
jcj_moz: I want to entertain the idea, but have to think through it.
agl: it seems reasonable to ponder it and come back next week.
akshay: will have to make sure all combinations work after we make changes.
tony: anything else
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: jbarclay jcj_moz elundberg jeffh No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana_ Inferring Scribes: jfontana_ WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2019Aug/0081.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]