Meeting minutes
Adding meeting times
Discussion around adding 30 minutes to the existing Bi-Weekly meeting, or meeting on a weekly basis
Mike Jones: If we move to weekly, it will conflict with the Verifiable Credential Working Group, which is purposefully staggered to not conflict with WAWG
Discussion to move to weekly with different times
this seems to work for most
no objections
ACTION: Tony and Philippe to update calendar to account for weekly meetings with an hour (earlier) offset every 1 week
TPAC Joint Meeting Agenda
Ian Jacobs: The WG is meeting on Monday and Tuesday, when we last met in May, we discussed the following: https://
Discussion of updates on the topics covered in May
John Grossar from Visa to discuss SPC and WebAuthn at TPAC possibly
IanJacobs: Wanted to discuss PSD3 (on Thurs) but the vibe we got is that EU is not immediately interested in discussion right now
Ian: Push payments fraud has been a topic of interest in the SPCWG lately
Ian: another topic is FedCM. I've reached out to chairs, because in some flows there's concerns around returning user recognition when cookies aren't present and in iFrames
Ian: raising awareness in SPCWG about FedCM concerns, they're willing to show a demo at TPAC, everyone can attend at TPAC but maybe that's too many people
Ian: Bit of a brain dump on what agenda could be for Monday and Tuesday meetings
Tony: could be good to include CG in these meetings
Nick Steele and Matt Miller on call, can use CG timeslots on Monday and Tuesday to discuss some of this agenda
Tuesday Afternoon seems like best time for joint meeting between cg/wg groups
ACTION: Ian to find adequate meeting space
farewell, Ian Jacobs
Standard Agenda
Tim: there isn't anything novel in terms of arguments and generally negative sentiment (via emoji) for this PR
Discussion from Matt Miller on how this differs from existing infernece methods and the definition of passkey.
Matt: It makes sense to have this match the Discoverable Key definition
Kosuke Koiwai posts a link to FIDO internal dovument
Koiwai: This document outlines passkey definition, which is different
TimC: This is a technical document, and the messaging in this document, which is a marketing document, varies from what we want to technically define
JohnBradley: there are some differences between the marketing and technical definitions
AGL and John: Discvoverable is mentioned in document, and for technical intent and purpose is synonymous with discoverable
MattM: Spec should become the source of truth for this, and currently developers will rely on technical docs like MDN
KosukeKoiwai: Google dev documents use the term passkey but then in the API, the use of passkey is not present
AGL: Which API?
Kowwai: Android API
API: We use the term passkey a lot, but we follow the API laid out by WebAuthn
Koiwai: I don't think defining passkey in W3C is good but am not interested in pushing on this
Currently the term passkey does not correspond to an existing reference, but the necessity should appear when another ongoing PR lands
Shane: rhetorically, why should we keep the term?
Steele: The W3C spec should be a source of truth for this term, and providing words that _allude_ to the use of the term passkey is more complex than not using the term passkey
ACTION: Steele to close #1939
Discussion around objections to remove the term passkey and how decisions are made on the standard (decisions are made on the call)
<plh> Tim will merge #1936 into #1923
ACTION: Tim will merge #1936 into #1923
ACTION: Matt to point w3c/
Matt: this is ready to merge and approved
Tony: any issues?
<matthewmiller> w3c/
Tony: shane's issues resolved?
Shane: yes, I resolved
MattM: looking for formal approval here
AGL: I believe you have user.name and user.DisplayName spun around here
Matt: The usecase I had in my mind was different. In android's case, they use user.DisplayName and it's ambiguous
Discussion around wording in the PR around which name is more ambiguous
absolutely riveting stuff
<steele> Discussion around how some RPs provide user.name's to their accounts and how they should distinguish credentials
<steele> MattMiller: is there an example for Display name that can signify what you should put in the case of multi-tenancy/accounts
<steele> AGL: perhaps we should've gotten rid of it, Apple has, we have not
<steele> TimC: This is something that may be helpful discussion in FIDO UXWG
ACTION: Matt Miller to revisit #1932
Conclusions
<steele> Emil: Does someone want to review 1911 real quick
<steele> Matt and Tim approved
<steele> Tony: We'll meet next wednesday at 11am PT / 2pm ET
<steele> Tim: need IDL assistance with #1923
<steele> meeting conclusion