- From: =JeffH via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:58:34 +0000
- To: public-webauthn@w3.org
sigh -- i hit the [comment] button on [my prior comment](https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/413#issuecomment-296781349) before I should have. apologies. we had an `id` member of the account dictionary back in WD-04 (https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/#iface-account), and [we presently have user.id](https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#dictdef-scopedcredentialentity), as @mikewest notes. >From the description of `account.id` in WD-04, it seems we nominally intended it to serve the semantic purpose of `id` as described in the SCIM schema, and thus the same should be true for the present `ScopedCredentialEntity::id`, tho the explanation in the spec could use some bolstering IMV (see also #403 "some RPs may wish to allow multiple registrations to same user account"). WRT the "name" thing, given that we do have the `id` member, then the user.names do not need to necessarily be unique (depending on how an RP may wish to utilize this API). I suppose I suggest returning to using "displayName", or perhaps "friendlyName", for `ScopedCredentialEntity::name`. @mikewest's question wrt needing to also have "detailedName" per (PR #423) is reasonable. I do not know that we wrote down our discussions that lead to having both `Account.name` and `Account.displayName` in earlier spec versions eg WD-04. -- GitHub Notification of comment by equalsJeffH Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/413#issuecomment-296805188 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 19:58:41 UTC