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

Re: -webauthn-registries now in repo (was: wrt registries (was: Spec status)

From: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 21:45:24 +0000
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <D3EF4068.D14DF%jehodges@paypalcorp.com>
On 9/2/16, 2:04 PM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>On 09/02/2016 02:06 PM, Hodges, Jeff wrote:
>> We have placed a updated draft-hodges-webauthn-registries* files in the
>>webauthn repo (in source .xml, and rendered .txt and .html formats).  I
>>updated it per mnot's feedback (ie to base it on the -5988bis draft
>>rather than RFC5988), and to match the present state of the webauthn
>>spec.
>> 
>> The .txt can be directly reviewed here..
>> 
>> 
>>https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webauthn/master/draft-hodges-webaut
>>hn-registries-00b.txt
>> 
>> This link will render the source file as HTML..
>> 
>> 
>>https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/asci
>>i&url=<https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=ht
>>ml/ascii&url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webauthn/master/draft-
>>hodges-webauthn-registries.xml>https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/weba
>>uthn/master/draft-hodges-webauthn-registries.xml<https://xml2rfc.tools.ie
>>tf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/ascii&url=https://raw.github
>>usercontent.com/w3c/webauthn/master/draft-hodges-webauthn-registries.xml>
>> 
>> It would be good to get some review of this from y'all before I submit
>>it in the IETF context as an individual submission.  :)
>> 
>
>Looks reasonable to me.

great, thx.


>An editorial question (applies to both attestation format and extension
>identifier sections):
>   Note that WebAuthn extensions can be registered by third parties, if
>   the Expert(s) determine that an unregistered extension is widely
>   deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner.
>
>Do you mean to say "... not likely to be registered by its creator in a
>timely manner." ?

Well, I plagarized that text directly from [1], so perhaps it's a comment
for mnot :)

To me, it reads fine without adding the "by its creator" qualification.

hth,

=JeffH

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis-01
Received on Friday, 2 September 2016 21:45:59 UTC

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