W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > August 2016

RE: Spec status

From: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 19:10:37 +0000
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4a10a20b573e4d1f9ea63d3c7afbe64c@microsoft.com>
I have now also pushed out PR #159 which implements the minimal approach for the Credential object issue - we could pick this and forgo the more invasive change of #158. Of course, if there is a viable third option I'm open to that as well. Feedback welcome.

From: Vijay Bharadwaj [mailto:vijaybh@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:12 PM
To: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: Spec status

As promised on the call, here is a summary of major spec issues other than the extensions that were discussed:

-          PR #154 has been out for a week. It fixes up some explanations around the authenticator model that were broken. This led to inconsistencies within the normative text which should now be resolved, without changing the IDL. Please take a look.

-          Some time ago, I had sent out two possible approaches for dealing with the Credential object. One was to remove it altogether and use the Credential ID directly; the other was to somehow move to a more object oriented model. After trying out a few possibilities for the latter, as discussed on last week's call, it seemed like the former was a simpler approach. This is now PR #158 - please review this, and give feedback on whether the approach seems reasonable, or if not what alternatives might be better.

-          I had also mentioned I would be sending out a PR with a cleanup of the attestation section. I've worked on this off and on over the past couple of weeks, but too many interruptions kept m from finishing it. I'll try and send it out soon as another PR.

-          After this, I will work on adding error conditions into the processing steps (issue #53).

-          A little while ago, we had listed the issues that needed to be fixed before we felt we had a version which could be a new Working Draft, ready for wider review. According to that list, after the above are done, we will be ready for a new WD. If you believe this is not the case, please let me know.

Thanks,

--
-Vijay
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2016 21:53:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:25 UTC