Re: Please review PR #386

On 3/24/17, 8:10 AM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:

The purpose of the prefixes was to provide uniqueness but the IANA registrations do that.  They just added space in a place where we want representations to be compact.

I could go either way on “appid” versus “fido_appid”, but saving space led me to strip the prefix.

agreed.  given that webauthn does not otherwise use the term "appid", and the text uses uses the phrase "FIDO appid" in key places, this seems ok to me also.

  If people feel strongly the other way, we can put it back.

                                                       -- Mike

From: Vijay Bharadwaj
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:33 PM
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Cc: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>; Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>; public-webauthn@w3.org
Subject: RE: Please review PR #386

Thanks. Curious, why rename the fido_appid extension to just appid? That seems to be one case in which the prefix was not useless – it actually signified the source of the altered appid calculation.

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:08 PM
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com<mailto:vijaybh@microsoft.com>>
Cc: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com<mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com>>; Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com<mailto:Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>>; public-webauthn@w3.org<mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: Please review PR #386

Hi Vijay,

Jeff and I believe that we are done editing https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/386.  The semantics edits were removed, per the decision on the WG call.

Could you please review this and unless there are issues, please accept the PR?  That will get us in position to submit draft-hodges-webauth-registries to create the IANA registries on Monday.

                                                                Thanks,
                                                                -- Mike