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: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:32:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_LCir-J8VRJpeLQZjff77US80t2AoFrjvrVXeR0c9CRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Janusz Majnert <jmajnert@gmail.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
I think all that the group(s) are looking for is some time to work with you
on something that is better (even if only marginally) than what is being
proposed today in as much as it opens the door for what they have in mind
for the future.
I acknowledge that there are a lot of considerations here and don't want
this to prevent your API spec moving forward.

Would it be fair to ask that the call for consensus be bumped by a few
weeks to allow for this collaboration.
This would give you and Dave an opportunity to compare notes and for the
Credentials CG to process your use cases for possible inclusion into their
scope (I think this can be a two-way sharing process that benefits both

If after that we conclude that the Crednetials Management API goes ahaead
as is then so be it.
I suspect that the only concession that the group will ask for in this case
is that you don't lock up the definition of credential as "login
credential" by perhaps changing some terminology.

On 15 April 2015 at 17:23, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
> > wrote:
>> But we need to concentrate on showing what the specific issues are and
>> how they can be addressed. It would be great if concerned members of
>> Credential and Web Payments CGs could raise issues on github instead
>> of reiterating the same points in lengthy emails :-)
>> +1 again, however the call for consensus closes in 2 days.
>> As far as I know there are a number of people working on providing just
>> that feedback but they simply require some more time.
>> As I asked in a previous email; would it help for a member/members of
>> these groups to join the WebAppSec WG in order to provide a voice from that
>> corner?
>> I am happy to do so if required but have not had feedback on this yet.
>> My original email on this thread was a proposal that the groups be given
>> time to pull down the latest polyfill code and demos and actually attempt
>> to run through some use cases as a basis for logging issues in GitHub.
>> That email has had no response...
> I haven't responded because I want to make sure I understand the documents
> Credentials CG has produced before extending the thread further. :)
> I've read through both http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
> (where username/password login is explicitly excluded from the flow under
> consideration in section 4.3
> <http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/#legacy-support>), and
> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/identity-credentials/. I haven't found
> reference to the `navigator.credentials.get` API that David referenced in
> an earlier message on this thread. Could you point me at that document so I
> can get a feel for the way you've structured things?
> My impression is that we might indeed be able to find some abstraction
> that doesn't stomp on anyone's use cases. I'm a little worried that doing
> so will make both sets of use cases more difficult to actually use, and
> developer ergonomics are important. I'm also worried that the credentials
> CG's work on both a new protocol and delivery mechanism is a bit too "boil
> the ocean"; my hope was to slowly move towards a better world by leveraging
> the things that currently exist today. The use cases in section 1.1 of the
> credential spec I proposed lay out the baby steps that I think start us
> down the road. Critically, they have very small hurdles to developer
> adoption, as they can be trivially layered on top of an existing sign-in
> flow.
> I recognize that the world the credentials CG is envisioning is (in broad
> strokes) "better" than usernames and passwords. I hope you can likewise
> recognize that supporting usernames and passwords, and existing federations
> (which, together constitute the entirety of status-quo sign-in) is
> something that has real value for both users and web developers in the
> short- to medium-term.
> -mike
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 15 April 2015 15:32:52 UTC

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