W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > December 2018

Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

From: Christiaan Brand <cbrand@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 10:58:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE1XR1m69DiVW1NuDzYWAtuvbkYtvXhGa0nef1HZQOrsf9UGZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Cc: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Tony, I believe that on the call most was in favor of the new position:
making things *optional *and *non-normative. *Since humans are biased
towards inaction, I believe that this email, the way it's phrased, won't
get us the answer we're looking for. I certainly for one believe in the
new, non-normative position. Can we turn this question around and ask: *who
would absolutely not like to see these non-normative, and why not?*

Can we close this item out on tomorrow's call?

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:10 PM Adam Langley <agl@google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:06 PM Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The current consensus position within the working group was to continue
>> to push to keep the “extensions” as optional and normative, due to delays
>> on meeting the ongoing requirements of the W3C for extensions an option was
>> proposed at the last WG call to mark the extensions as optional and
>> non-normative, but still publish the extensions as part of the
>> specification. I would estimate that we would be 2-3 weeks more of
>> discussions with the W3C staff to complete the answers they are looking for
>> if we wanted to continue to make the extensions as optional and normative.
>>
>>
>>
>> If WG member would like to change the current position from as optional
>> and normative to optional and non-normative please respond to this message,
>> or if you have other suggestions please also respond.
>>
>
> We support moving forward with the extensions being optional and
> non-normative. I believe this only affects the appid extension, since
> that's the only one where we have multiple browser implementations, but our
> position doesn't depend on that.
>
> On the plus side, doing this eliminates a few weeks of expected delay and
> the risk of a longer delay (esp given the coming holidays). The downsides
> seem negligible as we don't believe that the normative status has any
> impact on the browsers' decision to implement or not implement something.
>
>
> AGL
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 18:58:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:59 UTC