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

RE: WD-05 Publish Schedule

From: Angelo Liao <huliao@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:15:01 +0000
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB2769FA87CE2C3FFD510FC574D7160@BN6PR03MB2769.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
PR#429 will fix issue#2367. I punted #245 to WD-06, which proposes we stop making cred id required when developer uses allowList. The reason is because 245 is really to address an issue if we add more types of  credential. Given that we only have one type now, it's a non-issue. Also, moving things from required to optional is a much easier change down the road.

Jeff, thank you for helping move all this to WD-06. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>; W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: RE: WD-05 Publish Schedule 

I believe that was the agreement we came to today 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hodges, Jeff [mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>; W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WD-05 Publish Schedule 

Ok, based on our discussion on the call today..

..all issues marked for milestone WD-05..

..EXCEPT for issues #245 and #367 (which will ostensibly be fixed by PR#429 [1], yes?), should be moved to milestone WD-06, yes?

[1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwebauthn%2Fpull%2F429&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C90c7ee3e89cd4056c45608d492526785%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636294330001553568&sdata=T46b0lS9wx%2BVdll6JbsFlOHknWjLe5hG1CpxyFNPRhA%3D&reserved=0

On 5/2/17, 4:25 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:

There have various issues that have been tagged by various people as “priority:implementation” that the some of the implementors are willing to take a risk on in hope that the change will not be needed or there is a good justification for making a breaking change, going into an implementation draft will help justify the remaining open issues. I really don’t want this to linger on trying for every single issue to be resolved as next week there will be someone’s else’s view on for instance what a name should be. I’m using  PR#429 as a gauge to publish WD05. So let’s see if we can’t push to resolve tomorrow and start the process to publish WD-05 so we have a concreate “thing” to point developers to.

Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2017 19:15:41 UTC

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