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

RE: Notes from WebAuthn Review

From: Adam Powers <adam@fidoalliance.org>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:24:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CACu+4cuC73GM-HPxpg5fHEV3KXe4QPGC2YUfRtJTPXNsbLVbLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Sounds like a great suggestion, thanks.

On May 21, 2016 at 2:20:12 PM, Vijay Bharadwaj (vijaybh@microsoft.com)
wrote:

> I’m not sure that it’s efficient to file new issues for each comment, and
> a lot of these are things where I think the right fix would be somewhere
> other than the place you get confused – essentially the text should have
> led in better to the statement that actually tripped you up.
>
>
>
> How about we do this in a more iterative way? I can create a branch next
> week and maybe we can do some back-and-forth editing to see if we can
> refine the text. WDYT?
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Powers [mailto:adam@fidoalliance.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:42 AM
> *To:* W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Notes from WebAuthn Review
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> During the face to face in Berlin I had raised my hand to read through the
> review draft of the spec and provide comments. I tried to approach this as
> if I were a first-time reader and think about what things might trip up an
> implementer.
>
>
>
> Attached are my annotations in PDF — sorry for the weird format, but I did
> my reading / reviewing in Evernote while sitting on a plane.
>
>
>
> Let me know if I should drop these into a GitHub issue or if there’s some
> better way to provide feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2016 01:24:44 UTC

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