Re: wrt all those "FIDO" terms, e.g. "FIDO Credentials" - new names?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Tony beat me to this one.
>
>
>
> This seems to add unnecessary cognitive overhead for web developers. They
> have to just know that if they want to support those flashy dongles with
> the FIDO logo, they need to use “ScopedSignature” (having a CredentialType
> enum value include Credential in its name seems like a redundant bit of
> redundancy) in their code. Moreover, using “FIDO” as an enum value in no
> way prevents the existence of other possible enum values. The API names and
> namespaces remain generic after all.
>

That's a very myopic view.  Look, I'm sure that calling WebRTC the Hangouts
API would appeared to reduce developer overhead in the early days of that
spec, when Hangouts was the only thing using it.  But as Felipe says, not
all that many developers have heard about FIDO today, and to be honest, I
hope this spec outlives FIDO.  I mean no ill will toward the FIDO Alliance,
but honestly in this space, device standards come and go; the Web abides.

--Richard



>
>
> *From:* Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 09, 2016 3:06 PM
> *To:* Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>; Hodges, Jeff <
> jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
> *Cc:* W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: wrt all those "FIDO" terms, e.g. "FIDO Credentials" - new
> names?
>
>
>
> I’m getting a little worried that we are now in meaningless territory as
> “FIDO” had a specific meaning the “ScopedSignatureCredentails” can mean
> anything. The use of FIDO is just like the use of RSA here.
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@mozilla.com <rbarnes@mozilla.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2016 1:30 PM
> *To:* Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
> *Cc:* W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: wrt all those "FIDO" terms, e.g. "FIDO Credentials" - new
> names?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/16, 1:20 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> """
> API Features in scope are: (1) Requesting generation of an asymmetric key
> pair within a specific scope (e.g., an origin); (2) Proving that the
> browser has possession of a specific private key, where the proof can only
> be done within the scope of the key pair. In other words, authentication
> should obey the same origin policy.
> """
>
> So this is a credential that provides authentication based on proof of
> possession of a signing key (i.e., a signature), where that signature is
> limited to some scope via the signing protocol we will define.
>
> Could people live with "ScopedSignatureCredential"?
>
>
>
> so you are suggesting..
>
>
>
> enum CredentialType {
>
>     "ScopedSignatureCredential"
>
> };
>
> .. yes?
>
> Precisely.
>
>
>
>
> sure, I can live with that.
>
>
>
> =JeffH
>
>
>
>
>