RE: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

I don't agree with the statement below - there is certain information that can and should be defined in the registry with respect to attestation formats.

To be more specific, I was referring to the definition of the attestation type for proprietary formats.  As per what I had proposed on the mailing list last week - see b) in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2016Aug/0136.html -  a proprietary attestation format should be clearly designated with a vendor prefix.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:06 PM
To: gmandyam via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>; public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: RE: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

As we discussed on the call today, things are not ever defined in registries.  The function of registries is to compile a list of *references* to specifications that do define them.

    -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmandyam via GitHub [mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:08 AM
To: public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: Re: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

Proprietary attestation formats do not belong in the Webauthn API specification.  They should be defined in an attestation registry (along with a reference to a normative specification that has been reviewed by the group).

--
GitHub Notification of comment by gmandyam Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/103#issuecomment-243850382

using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 20:47:22 UTC