19:46:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webauthn
19:46:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/09-webauthn-irc
19:46:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:46:39 <Zakim> Meeting: Web Authentication WG
19:46:42 <wseltzer> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2022Mar/0024.html
19:55:16 <Jfontana> Jfontana has joined #webauthn
20:04:40 <Jfontana> tony: no meeting on the 23rd, IETF week
20:04:42 <wseltzer> nadalin: No meeting March 23, IETF
20:04:54 <matthewmiller> matthewmiller has joined #webauthn
20:05:29 <Jfontana> tim: June 9 for meeting in San Francisco hosted by MSFT
20:05:49 <Jfontana> tony: draft charter?
20:06:01 <Jfontana> wendy: hoping for something by end of March
20:06:44 <Jfontana> wendy: question that came from Advisory committee
20:07:08 <Jfontana> ...licensing issues. Charter uses less permissive w3c doc license
20:07:20 <Jfontana> ...can't copy to make specification. anti-forking
20:07:58 <Jfontana> ...LE, if something goes wrong, can we still be under a license. Not likely outcome.
20:08:20 <Jfontana> ...helping the in discussion. AC asking should we re-license specs?
20:08:31 <Jfontana> ...this group has non-forking license
20:08:37 <Jfontana> ...raising question here
20:08:55 <Jfontana> ...should we bring back discussion to AC discussion?
20:08:59 <Jfontana> \...let me know
20:09:38 <Jfontana> ...can send your legal folks to come to W3C meeting
20:09:46 <Jfontana> tony: do we do anything?
20:09:49 <Jfontana> wendy: no
20:10:38 <Jfontana> agl: if it is not disrupting, my choice, most permissive license
20:11:09 <Jfontana> wendy: would could update without a big production
20:11:16 <Jfontana> tony: would be part of new chater
20:11:21 <Jfontana> wendy: pissibly
20:11:41 <Jfontana> possibly
20:11:57 <wseltzer> -> Document License https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license
20:12:05 <Jfontana> tony: what was your choice
20:12:15 <wseltzer> -> Software and Document License https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
20:12:19 <Jfontana> ...no need to be overly restrictive
20:12:30 <Jfontana> tony: any other preferences
20:12:56 <Jfontana> wendy: there was some preference for anti-forking
20:13:06 <Jfontana> ...so there should be one spec
20:13:56 <Jfontana> tony: how do we proceed?
20:14:13 <Jfontana> ...change, update, adopt new licensing?
20:14:22 <Jfontana> wendy: I can put details into github issue
20:14:28 <Jfontana> tony: OK
20:15:27 <Jfontana> wendy: could  make change without another review
20:15:33 <Jfontana> tony: OK open an issue
20:16:01 <Jfontana> tony: open PRs
20:16:26 <Jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1704
20:17:09 <Jfontana> elundberg: nothing to do here.
20:18:44 <Jfontana> jeffH: we don't explain use cases.
20:19:34 <Jfontana> shane: comes down to policy of the RP
20:19:47 <Jfontana> ...that is subtly missed
20:20:40 <Jfontana> elundberg: do we need to make it more apparent
20:20:49 <Jfontana> shane: not sure it is the right place to do that.
20:23:46 <Jfontana> jeffH: in create, the RP can set it; client decides what to send, it can be used or not used
20:24:33 <Jfontana> shane: we can write a reply on the PR
20:24:55 <Jfontana> ...and see if the commenter has their question answered
20:25:14 <Jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1695
20:25:19 <Jfontana> tim: I did a few updates.
20:27:44 <Jfontana> tony: discussion?
20:32:28 <Jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1425
20:32:51 <Jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1703
20:34:10 <Jfontana> matt: from google point of view, we will get on this PR
20:34:33 <Jfontana> Matt: PR in rough state so far
20:34:48 <Jfontana> ...not sure of next steps.
20:37:01 <Jfontana> martin: should return objects.
20:37:09 <Jfontana> agl: can we reasonably do that?
20:37:28 <Jfontana> martin: we can reasonably support that
20:37:56 <Jfontana> matt: I am optimistic
20:42:45 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer, timcappalli, agl, davidturner, emlundberg, jeffh, johnbradley, Jfontana, johnpascoe, nadalin, martinkreichgauer, matthewmiller, sbweeden
20:44:21 <Jfontana> tony: will you work on this one?
20:44:56 <Jfontana> matt: will work on this
20:48:39 <Jfontana> ...I was hoping to define return values
20:48:50 <Jfontana> ...with specific internals
20:49:05 <Jfontana> ... do we need to deal with something like that?
20:52:17 <Jfontana> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1696
20:52:59 <Jfontana> tony: what is the action here
20:53:31 <Jfontana> shane: unless there is intent to implement, looks like not, so maybe don't spend time on it.
20:53:34 <Jfontana> tony: don
20:53:47 <Jfontana> ...don't hear talk to get on this
20:54:14 <Jfontana> agl: I don't see action on this issue
20:54:22 <Jfontana> tonuy: close? more time?
20:54:32 <Jfontana> ...any concerns?
20:54:53 <Jfontana> ...we don't have good feedback
20:55:10 <Jfontana> jeffH: are we thinking this is speculative, but interesting
20:55:19 <Jfontana> ...doesn't seem to be interest in L3
20:55:41 <Jfontana> agl: is interesting, but not near the top
20:56:01 <Jfontana> tony: could move to futures.
20:56:06 <Jfontana> agl: sure
21:18:15 <wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:18:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/09-webauthn-minutes.html wseltzer
21:18:26 <wseltzer> chair: Nadalin, Fontana
21:18:27 <wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:18:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/09-webauthn-minutes.html wseltzer