(Forking the thread for clarity) Hi Manu! I've put forward this draft of the credential management spec in order to seek exactly this sort of feedback from developers. If there are indeed technical deficiencies in the spec that make it unsuitable for use cases that we ought to support, then we certainly need to change it. Indeed, the API proposed in this document is intended to be fairly generic (it has ~2 methods) and extensible (by subclassing `Credential`) so as not to block future innovation. It would be helpful to understand how exactly it blocks you from doing the work you'd like to be doing. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2015 04:21 PM, Mike West wrote: > > Well, wait no longer! This is a real call for consensus to publish > > the following draft of "Credential Management" as a First Public > > Working Draft: > > -1, the spec completely ignores the very substantial work going on in > the Credentials CG and the Web Payments IG that is related to the API > you're proposing. > Perhaps the word "credentials" is causing problems; after skimming the documents you pointed to, I don't see significant overlap between this spec and those groups. Is your concern that we're co-opting the term? Or is there something deeper? I suggest the Web AppSec Chairs start coordinating w/ the Web Payments > IG and the Credentials CG before proposing the publication of this FPWD. > +Brad, Dan, Wendy. -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 08:46:21 UTC