Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

I think the “three week wait” is overly optimistic. But maybe that’s just
me.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:58 J.C. Jones <jc@mozilla.com> wrote:

> If we mark all of the extensions as non-normative, it *seems* like they
> should move into some other document(s) of extensions then, as Mike Jones
> advocated many moons ago.
>
> Isn't that the normal way these things work? That seems like more work or
> delay than waiting for the FIDO/W3C talks to finish up.
>
> J.C.
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:59 PM Christiaan Brand <cbrand@google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>