W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Please review PR #386

From: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:37:53 +0000
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@microsoft.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-webauthn@w3.org" <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5F039F24-4AD9-4111-922E-C4946BBC3376@paypal.com>

On 3/24/17, 8:18 AM, "Vijay Bharadwaj" <vijaybh@microsoft.com<mailto:vijaybh@microsoft.com>> wrote:

OK. Let’s merge it for now and repaint the bikeshed later if we have to.

great, thanks.

Do you think this is sufficient to address #131

good catch. imho issue #131 was addressed long ago per comment i just inserted there while closing it.


or do you think we still need a glossary entry at the front of the spec?
We created inline <dfn>'s for "registration extension" and "authentication extension" and marked-up all occurances to link to the definitions so we're good for now, but could add entries to Terminology section later if folks wish.

=JeffH


From: Mike Jones
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <vijaybh@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

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.  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<mailto:Michael.Jones@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: 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

Received on Friday, 24 March 2017 15:38:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 07:26:25 UTC