Re: WebAppSec Credentials Management API FPWD consensus plan

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> To be clear, we're skeptical that the current form of the API lends
>
itself well to the type of extension we'd like to perform. We can do it,
> but every approach we've tried thus far feels like a hack and we'd
> probably end up defining a new API rather than extending the one
> currently defined (clearly, that's not a good thing and we want to avoid
> that).
>

That's disappointing to hear. We've made a number of compromises in the API
in order to increase the flexibility for the kinds of extensions David
(CC'd) has asked for in https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/issues/256. Since
there hasn't been substantive discussion on that bug since Friday, I
thought we were pretty close to being on the same page.

I look forward to seeing the sorts of ideal data structures and APIs from
your groups, but I'm wary of what sounds increasingly like a complete
rewrite.

and now that it's
> clear that the WebAppSec group intends to coordinate with those two
> other groups, I'm happy to support publication of the FPWD.


I agree that we should publish an FPWD to kick off the exclusion period
regardless of the detail discussion about the exact words and shape of the
API.

-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.)