Re: [webauthn] Clean up attestation, abstract it from UA, fix TPM format, add U2F format

@vijaybh wrote:
> Looking at the latest changes, I wonder if we could put the CBOR 
field name back to just "attestation". This would be the only field 
with such a name, and it would save bytes on a structure that may be 
produced on an authenticator with limited capability. WDYT?

@rlin1 replied in [email 
here](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2017Jan/0078.html):
>First I think the spec is much better to read after those changes.
We call it attestation statement and the field containing it is also 
called
attestation statement.
Same with attestation object.
If the number of bytes is so important, we could abbreviate
attestationObject to "attstnObj" - that is even fewer bytes than the
original.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by equalsJeffH
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/321#issuecomment-272209582 using 
your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2017 16:26:13 UTC