- From: =JeffH via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:50:27 +0000
- To: public-webauthn@w3.org
After thinking about it some, I am going to venture a guess that the overall intention of having the [WebAuthn Authenticator model](https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#authenticator-model) defined "somewhat fuzzily" is that it gives platform developers wiggle-room for defining their specific authenticator APIs. It seems that [CTAP's Authenticator API](https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-v2.0-rd-20161004/fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.0-rd-20161004.html#authenticator-api) is a particular instance of such an API. So I suppose that the platform folks and authenticator vendors here ought to weigh-in on whether they would be prefer to have the WebAuthn Authenticator model](https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#authenticator-model) defined in this somewhat fuzzy fashion, or whether they feel having CTAP's API become the normative authenticator API is the way to go. -- GitHub Notification of comment by equalsJeffH Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/410#issuecomment-303892288 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 00:50:33 UTC