W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Splitting "Credential Management"?

From: Dominic Battre <battre@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:27:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFa1-K1HbaEK6ALrJFVt+7tcZg1+dd52aMdd+7=OKkYsBpf0Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Bates <dabates@apple.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Václav Brožek <vabr@google.com>, Angelo Liao <huliao@microsoft.com>, Peter Dolanjski <pdolanjski@mozilla.com>
Hi Mike,

I think that splitting the API into two is an important exercise to be sure
that the API is extensible as intended.

A few nits:
- I think that
not fully done. Imagine that you request navigator.get({"password": true,
"federated": ...}). In this case, retriever is set twice (for password and
federated - in arbitrary order) but executed only once. I think that it is
not clear yet how |options| are selected to be passed to
[[Retrieve]](options, mediation).
- I wonder whether we should define some merge step where multiple
different types of credentials can be requested and the browser needs to
present the user which one to pick. I wonder, whether for this purpose we
should also have two separate algorithms for passwords and federated
states "This accepts an arbitrary filter, and returns a
Sequence<Credential> of those credentials that match the filter." but
returning a sequence of credentials is not reflected in
- As discussed some time ago, maybe we should get rid of
SiteBoundCredential and move name and iconURL into PasswordCredential and


I am happy to help with these.

Best regards,

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> Hey Daniel! Thanks for your feedback!
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Daniel Bates <dabates@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2017, at 6:26 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>> Hey folks!
>> While re-reading through the Credential Management API, I realized that
>> the extension mechanisms aren't at all clear. As a thought exercise, I'm
>> mostly finished with splitting the document into a generic API that defines
>> the high-level architecture (https://w3c.github.io/webapps
>> ec-credential-management/base.html), and a document that specifies
>> `PasswordCredential` and `FederatedCredental` as an extension (
>> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-credential-management/sitebound.html).
>> WDYT? Is this a sane division? Does it actually make the integration
>> points clearer by forcing us to use them, or is it more confusing than not
>> to have the pieces in distinct documents?
>> Is this split more for organizational purposes as an editor?
> I should have been a little more clear about the context: we're working
> with the WebAuthentication group to sketch out what it might look like to
> fold their API into the Credential Management API (https://github.com/w3c/
> webauthn/pull/384). As part of that exercise, I've realized that the
> current CM API document is both too hand-wavey about how the extension
> model actually works, and unclear about the pieces inherent to the generic
> API vs those that are specific to the `PasswordCredential` and
> `FederatedCredential` interfaces.
>> Without such a hyperlink, if this proposed division existed before my
>> reading of the Credential Management spec then the devision would have
>> hampered my understanding of the concrete use cases of this API as I would
>> need to read a secondary spec to be able to ascertain them or rediscover
>> them.
> Yeah, I guess it's an open question at this point whether the API will
> cover passwords/federations and nothing else. If those are the only
> credentials we support, then I agree with you that things are simpler if
> everything is in a single document. If we branch out a bit, then I think
> there's some merit to treating all the credential types as extensions to
> the generic document, rather than "privileging" one set of credential types
> by including them in the document.
> You state in sections Extension Points and Browser extensions of <
>> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-credential-management/base.html> there
>> is a future for just the base Credential Management API outside of usage
>> for passwords and federated credentials, but then leave it largely as an
>> exercise to the reader to imagine such usage. I understand you just split
>> the specs as a step towards expanding these sections. I'm unclear how much
>> we can expand these sections. Is there so much to write about such
>> extensions that would make the spec excessively long so as to warrant
>> separating it into two?
> It's quite possible that folks might implement the WebAuthn credential
> type before they implement passwords/federations, for instance. To do so,
> they'd still need to implement the generic API bindings, but the detail
> about passwords/federations might end up confusing that implementation more
> than helping. *shrug* I'm not sure what the right balance is.
>> How much value is there in just implementing <
>> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-credential-management/base.html>?
> ~zero. The API is just a stub that vends promises that resolve to `null`
> until a concrete credential type is implemented. :)
> -mike

Google Germany GmbH - Erika-Mann-Str. 33 - 80636 München - Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Received on Friday, 17 March 2017 17:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:00 UTC