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

RE: 08/10/2016 W3C Web Authentication WG Agenda

From: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:58:42 +0000
To: "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
CC: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <372b971297f04d929a4a0fb996ab4e88@microsoft.com>
Jeff, regarding this one:

>>- Sign off on an approach for handling the Credential object (PR 159 / PR 158 / other?)

> can we please change the above to "set timeline for reviews"?  I am still reviewing the proposals, and there's been no discussion on-list (also, I have not had a chance to reivew the recent webauthn concall minutes as yet).

I want to do two things:
1. Try to reach agreement on what high-level approach we are taking - this has been discussed on a number of meetings and it's fundamental enough we should just pick an option unless we come up with new information we haven't considered yet. The default choice in my mind is the option of least change (PR 159) but I would really like to have second and third opinions.
2. Set a timeline for reviewing my specific implementation of the agreed-upon approach. Obviously it's summer and many people have been taking time off so I understand this is slower, but we should set a deadline.

Does that make sense to you?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hodges, Jeff [mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:49 AM
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>; Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
Cc: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: Re: 08/10/2016 W3C Web Authentication WG Agenda

am back from PTO+IETF and have a few comments/builds on Vijay's agenda suggestions...

On 8/9/16, 9:48 PM, "Vijay Bharadwaj" <vijaybh@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Can we discuss some of the core spec issues and put them to bed before 
>going into extensions?

agreed.

> 
>- eTLD + 1

yep

>- Sign off on an approach for handling the Credential object (PR 159 / 
>PR
>158 / other?)

can we please change the above to "set timeline for reviews"?  I am still reviewing the proposals, and there's been no discussion on-list (also, I have not had a chance to reivew the recent webauthn concall minutes as yet).

>- Walk through PR 154 (processing rules exposition) and set timeline 
>for reviews
>- Walk through attestation changes (I will send this out shortly) and 
>set timeline for reviews

the above sounds reasonable.


also, unfortunately, I have meeting conflicts this morning and will likely need to drop off the call early.

thanks, HTH, 

=JeffH


 
> 
>From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:21 PM
>To: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
>Subject: 08/10/2016 W3C Web Authentication WG Agenda
>
>
> 
>Here is the agenda for the 08/10/2016 W3C Web Authentication WG
> 
>1.      
>Roll Call, use IRC to log your attendance
>2.      
>Pick a scribe
>3.      
>Open Issues
>a.      
>eTLD+1
>b.      
>Extensions (UVM/UVI)
>c.      
>Any others
>4.      
>Specification Status
>5.      
>Adjourn
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 07:26:22 UTC