tony: as we stated last week, we are in CR.
… no open pull requests, or triaged PRs, have some issues
… agl has responded. Still waiting for comments.
bradley: questions on transport hints
agl: we do this.
bradley: we need to scope the impact, that may bring some understanding of the issue
tony: we don't normalize this in the spec
bradley: maybe chrome is working on this
agl: we do the best we can to provide this information.
… none of that is web authn material
tony: this would be a normative change, not appropriate for CR
… I would like to move this to L3
jeffH: that is appropiate
consensus to move to L3
tony: only tech issue open in CR. I have asked Denis to use github to enter any issues
… so we can track them, but I don't see anything that is normative change
jeffH: in L2
nickS: we discussed getting a list of authenticators that are non-conformit to Web authn spec or have specific behanvioes
… will respond differently than most authenticators
… authenticators that might not support discoverable keys
… want this so we can remediate with the vendors
bradleuy: you are looking for authenticators that have unusual behaviors
agl: brad hill has a list of keys in this category
bradlely: this list is old
bradlely: your mileage may vary
selfissue: where are we with getting the CR approved and when
tony: issues here are editorial. if not in CR, we will move to L3 to fix.
<wseltzer> ^ the other link agl mentioned
zakim: list attendees