Web Authentication WG

02 Dec 2020



wseltzer, jeffh, jbarclay, davidturner, davidwaite, dveditz, agl, akshay, bill, jbradley, nadalin, nsteele, rae, sbweeden, jfontana, selfissued
Nadalin, Fontana


tony: looking at CR.
... readiness

tonuy: we have an untriaged issue.

jeffH: will issue #1302 delay us for PR?

agl: no PRs are filed.
... mozilla and apple say they want a PR.

jeffH: if it is a problem, we can push to L3

akshay: on #1302 mozilla and chrome have two different takes on the issue
... is this a convergence?

jeffH: we could add a single new rule.

akshay: chrome and firefox throw an exception - they are not identival
... we should write a PR here.

tony: or move to L3.
... is anyone from apple on the call today. No.

wendy: seeing a number of people weighing in, it sounds like we need a reasoned response to it.

jbradlley: does mozilla have to write the PR, they need to say which error they support.

dan-moz: it is what error is thrown.

jeffH: it looks like a simple type error

akshay: can we go forward with that.

jeffH: these are simple exceptions.
... it's two different flavors of the error.
... throw a type error here?

jbradley: should be simple enough that the conformance test and spec are aligned, then it should go away.

dan-moz: I think we would prefer a dom exception
... figure out what mozilla is doing.
... I have to ask

tony: want to get to this as soon as possible.
... agl can you do the PR. no.

jeffH: I can do it.

agl: I would prefer to keep Google out of this.

tony: that leaves mozilla doing this.
... or we move it.
... this is holding up the CR

dan-moz: I will look into it,


tony: this one has to be looked at.
... jeffH signed off on it.


tony: think this is the same boat as the other one
... jeffH has some questions.


agl: I can write this up. won't be breaking, but technical change.

jbradley: I think agl is suggesting the most reasonable thing to do.

tony: so agl work on the PR as discussed.
... so we would be down to the one mozilla is looking at.
... can we move to CR after closing #1302, we would build a new document and update wd-04

wendy: OK. there is no technical difference between the two.

tony: we will have CR to close the editorial issues.
... will work on updating list of editors, contributors.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/02 20:44:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Present: wseltzer jeffh jbarclay davidturner davidwaite dveditz agl akshay bill jbradley nadalin nsteele rae sbweeden jfontana selfissued
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana
Inferring Scribes: jfontana

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2020Dec/0003.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]