Re: Account -> Options; ScopedCredentialParameters

I'll make a PR.


Thanks!
-Alexei

*____**_**__**_**_**_**_**_**_**_**_**_*

 . Alexei Czeskis .:. Securineer .:. 317.698.4740 .

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Alexei Czeskis <aczeskis@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree wrt 'account' -- sounds like a good idea.
>>
>
> Want to make a PR, or do I have to clone the repo? :)  I think it should
> just be an IDL change; might have to shift around how we refer to the thing.
>
>
> I kind of like `cryptoParameters` as a name. it forces our hand into
>> trying to not define a rich policy language.  But `constraints` is fine too.
>>
>
> That's fair enough.  Let's have the conversation about what we want RPs to
> be able to express, and we can name the parameter to match.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Alexei
>>
>> *____**_**__**_**_**_**_**_**_**_**_**_*
>>
>>  . Alexei Czeskis .:. Securineer .:. 317.698.4740 .
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I can't remember if we talked about this before.  Would it make sense to
>>> move the `account` argument to `makeCredential` into the `options`
>>> dictionary?  It seems like there are at least some credential types that
>>> don't require it (e.g., U2F credentials), and it makes the interface a bit
>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> I also wonder whether given the discussion this week it might make sense
>>> to change the `cryptoParameters` argument to something like `constraints`,
>>> as is done in getUserMedia [1], as a general "These are the types of
>>> credential I support" field.  Might not be necessary if we don't want to
>>> allow the caller to specify anything more than we do now, but might be a
>>> way to address some of the concerns about, e.g., attestation types, that
>>> were raised this week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/mediacapture-streams/#constraints
>>>
>>
>>
>