<wseltzer> present=

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1466

tony: concerns with this one?

agl: I think I see an error,m, let me fix that before we land this.

tony: JC is this something you can look at

jc_moz: yes

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1467

agl: one comment I need to look at.
... I need to make some wording changes in response

tony: akshay reviwe

akshay: yes

agl: no normative changes. includes changes with previous PR
... get this done in Level 2

tony: that is the PRs.

selfissue: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1469
... hot off press
... I asked for review. Who can look at this. changing registry entries

jc_moz: I can go through it

tony: let's move to issues
... still waiting on Apple attestation stufgf

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1422

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1462

jc_moz: waiting for response. I am worried about this making through the tag alive.
... I don't think we should ignore this before tag reviewe
... we should add to the interface that is returned by the getclient extenstion
... the ability to go straight to web crypto
... I will propose moving this to its own file

jbradley: I can see why you may want this with web crypto
... key derivation to de-crypt something a service
... why not do that with one gesture

jc_moz: a lot of people will want this to use straight to web crypto

jbradley: do we want to do user presence checks?
... if general purpose crypto device don't want use to touch each tim

jc_moz: thinking where they want this next to full web authn
... what is easiest path?
... we could make web authn cleaner

jbradley: this is in CTAP on FIDO side.
... key derivation is different
... UP is not always required in CTAP
... can't do it silently

jc_moz: this makes sense to have web crypto types

tony: you are saying want main function in web auhthn

jc_moz: if we had a web crypto group, we would work thre.
... so i don't know the right answer
... I fell like this will come up in Tag

agl: a couple of RPs asked for this. seemed minor.
... I did not anticipagte an objection.
... if it goes away I am not going to shed tears
... my team wants this.
... we need to explain more why this is there

selfissue: leave it in, then come back ot it
... I could do this later

jbradley: you want a web crypto interface to this?

selfissue: define new web authn doc with same extension text
... we could make a second doc only if we get push back an AC review time.

jc_moz: this is early review from my side.

jbradley: objection is - they see it for progressive web apps and expose through web crypto

jc_moz: this is the key is avaialble to javascript engine

tony: you don't expect push back in terms of hardware

jc_moz: not many web crytpo people left here
... we have this risk now with this doc

agl: flip side here is not bad, if things expand in the future we will have this key
... array buffer might be ideal way to interface them

jc_moz: doesn't seem as dangerous to me.
... this is more generic web authn

agl: web auhtnn expanding expanding seems plausible, web crypto, no

jc_moz: this is blend, web crypto being inside web authn
... this was intended to be a complete replace to the extension in web authn

agl: when you start to duplicate, you have to look at more things
... this extension is relatively eaiser

jc_moz: we can wait. i can take issue and make a PR about web crypto

jbradley: that might be a useful step

agl: I don't want to sink web authen on this, we can throw this out. can make it a specific API

akshay: we wanted this to be useful feature. we had a use case.
... another group that does not care about signature calls (?)
... I was thinking a platform API
... I see both points. I would prefer this to be here

jbradley: the question seems to be features creep

akshay: this has nothing to do with log-ins. more like disk de-cryption

agl: do yo have web context

akshay: not yet

jc_moz: I see it coupled with LastPass
... for example

tony: are there web app sec requirements?

self-issue: at meta-level spending lot of time on this
... table this and see if they come true.

agl: we can't ignore mozilla and plow ahead

selfissue: not saying that, we see push back coming

jc_moz: that is not firm, but concerned.

selfissue: leave it in and let JC do a PR

tony: jc, agl you OK with that

jc_moz: I will continue to get better resolution internally

tony: has to be closed by review time.
... fine with that

selfissue: that's fine.

jc_Moz: ok

akshay: sounds resonable.

jbvradely: you going to do a PR with some additional text

jc_moz: yes. but might not satisfy all this issue

tony: any other issues to discuss
... untriaged issue

https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1465

akshay: they did some work for windows so it can be done in private keys, not sure on other platforms

tony: will that ship

akshay, incognito mode, yes.

agl: this is not a web authn issue
... for incogniton, not a spec issue

wendy: w3c specs do not refer to specific browser modes

<wseltzer> https://w3ctag.github.io/private-browsing-modes/

tony: is this something for web authn adoption should take up

nickS: yes, i will talk about it there

tony: anything else

shane: yes.

should we have language in web authn how platform authenticators should behave.

akshay: we have issue for that

shane: OK, I will let it go.
... then I withdraw the idea of a new issue.

adjourn

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/jfontana_/jfontana/G
Present: jfontana wseltzer jcj_moz selfissued agl akshay billleddy davidturner eric jeremyerickson davidwaite nadalin nsteele nina sbweeden elundberg Rae johnbradley
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana
Inferring Scribes: jfontana

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2020Aug/0029.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.)