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

RE: 05/24/2016 WebAuthn Summary

From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:02:02 +0000
To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>, "public-webauthn@w3.org" <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0301MB12435D4DC0BBEE175AEFF164A6420@CY1PR0301MB1243.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
That is correct, we look forward to your contribution !

From: Mandyam, Giridhar [mailto:mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 8:56 AM
To: public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: RE: 05/24/2016 WebAuthn Summary

If that is the case, then there should be no issues with adding one more pre-defined extension to the spec to cover opaque data - correct?


From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:14 PM
To: public-webauthn@w3.org<mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: 05/24/2016 WebAuthn Summary

Since not everyone was on the call this week, I wanted to post what I believe the consensus was on the call regarding the "extensions" issue was and wanted to makes sure that we also have consensus on the list.

1.      Agreement that all extensions should be optional, and agreement to leave pre-defined extensions in the spec as they are currently defined.

2.      Start and IETF RFC for the creations of a IANA Registry for the extensions (Jeff took this action item)

3.      Add clarifying text around the extensions (Jeff took the action item)
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 16:02:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 07:26:20 UTC