W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Overlap with Credentials/Web Payments CG (was Re: CfC to publish a FPWD of Credential Management; ending April 17th.)

From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:19:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEeYn8hCs+swe=T=PW2UZyjSheHawzcShWL9Ek4vig4rp5ZMnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
I think the subject of this thread is an excellent summary of the core
issue here, and the more I read, the more I'm convinced that the only
overlap is in the name of this spec and the CG.

The Credentials CG is working on a very ambitious project to reinvent how
authentication, identity, federations and attested attributes are exchanged
on the web.

The Credential Management API is attempting to make incremental
improvements to existing browser (and plugin) technology for ease-of-use
affordances around saving what might accurately be termed legacy
username/password and username/realm pairs.

These differences are also in-keeping with the style and charter
obligations of the different types of groups.  A Community Group has much
looser patent commitments and a broader scope to explore and invent.  A
Working Group is chartered with a specific scope, strong patent commitments
within that scope, and member organizations *very* carefully review that
scope before choosing to participate.

Given that WebAppSec has just completed a rechartering, and the scope in
that charter, I don't think that we _can_ work on something with much more
detail than the abstractly extensible model that Mike has specified.

The overall construction might be arranged differently, but getting into
the details of things going on in the Credentials CG, which involves
technology around payment instruments, claims, blinding, signatures,
credential brokering, linked data formats, etc. is seriously beyond our
charter and risks the ability for many of our participating organizations
to continue to do so, were we to put it into the charter.  (and I don't
think there is any energy or enthusiasm for another rechartering process at
this time)

Really, I see the goals and use cases targeted here as different enough
that neither one is a threat to the other - even if they were to continue
to share the term "credentials".

But, unfortunately, as a point of order within this group, I'd like to ask
that we confine discussion to the shape of the abstract API.  If we can
improve it to make it more future-proof, we should of course do so, but
providing a direct implementation for the Credential CG and Payment IG's
use cases is not what we are chartered to do, members of those groups have
not joined the WG or executed contributor's agreements, and we cannot take
potentially encumbered technology into our specifications, especially that
which is beyond our charter scope.


Brad Hill
Co-Chair WebAppSec WG
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 17:20:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:48 UTC