"priority:implementation" issues, and PRs left for WD-05

Angelo wrote:
 > The longstanding PR 384 was merged about an hour ago ☺. As we
 > discussed on the call, there are 4 PRs we are waiting before WD-05
 > can be ready. Here

Note also that there are 36 open issues labeled as 
"priority:implementation"..

 
<https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apriority%3Aimplementation>

..and 29 issues marked with milestone WD-05..

   https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/milestone/9

..and these two sets /largely intersect/ but the latter is not a proper 
subset of the former.

The presently-open PRs will close only a few of the above issues.

I've claimed the "rpid" / "origin" issues and will work on them over the 
next couple days. I also have some renaming issues that are labeled 
"priority:implementation" & WD-O5 that I ought to be able to address.

Though that will still leave a modest passel of 
"priority:implementation" / WD-O5 issues to either address or postpone 
-- we should probably assess whether any of them are must-dos and do them.

HTH,

=JeffH

###
On 4/19/17, 12:48 PM, "Angelo Liao" <huliao@microsoft.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

The longstanding PR 384 was merged about an hour ago ☺. As we discussed 
on the call, there are 4 PRs we are waiting before WD-05 can be ready. 
Here is how I’d rank as priority based on two principles: 1) CTAP comes 
first, then implementation, and finally editorial works, and 2) 
readiness of the PR. I hope you may review the PRs in this order.

1. PR 409: Add Test of User Identity (TUI) bit to authenticator data
2. PR 378: Enable RP to choose authenticators based on key storage 
capability
   a. This is the related use case classification: 
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/334.
3. PR 350: Throw NotFoundError when no authenticator is available
   a. This would works implementation-wise. 2 lines of code are change 
here. Even though I don’t care much about this one, I figure we should 
take a look at it.
4. PR 389: Separated proposed changes to extension semantics from PR 
#386 and use TypeError, per @jyasskin
   a. In a chat after the call this morning, MikeJ suggested if this PR 
is blocking WD-05, he’s ok with dropping this PR from WD-05.

Thank you everyone for your work in this WG! Special thanks to MikeW and 
JeffH for your works in PR 384 ☺

Angelo

Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 20:50:48 UTC