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

RE: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

From: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:46:49 +0000
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, gmandyam via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>, "public-webauthn@w3.org" <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b32f16ef12a947a9af399aafb013732f@NASANEXM01C.na.qualcomm.com>
I don't agree with the statement below - there is certain information that can and should be defined in the registry with respect to attestation formats.

To be more specific, I was referring to the definition of the attestation type for proprietary formats.  As per what I had proposed on the mailing list last week - see b) in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2016Aug/0136.html -  a proprietary attestation format should be clearly designated with a vendor prefix.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:06 PM
To: gmandyam via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>; public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: RE: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

As we discussed on the call today, things are not ever defined in registries.  The function of registries is to compile a list of *references* to specifications that do define them.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmandyam via GitHub [mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:08 AM
To: public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: Re: [webauthn] Add Android "N" attestation type.

Proprietary attestation formats do not belong in the Webauthn API specification.  They should be defined in an attestation registry (along with a reference to a normative specification that has been reviewed by the group).

GitHub Notification of comment by gmandyam Please view or discuss this issue at

using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 20:47:22 UTC

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