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 12:24:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE1XR1nwRprfr0V6+EZnyiDzid9H4U5E9bmvEV_VGSRfk4dahQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rolf Lindemann <rlindemann@noknok.com>
Cc: "J.C. Jones" <jc@mozilla.com>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
But isn't the three weeks we need to polish up the spec a less speculative
three weeks than waiting for W3C to approve this process? Or are we pretty
sure we just need to sit back and wait three weeks, and all will be done?

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:18 PM <rlindemann@noknok.com> wrote:

> Splitting the documents in two parts and verifying correctness and
> polishing it will also take some time (maybe also 3 weeks?).
>
>
>
> *Von:* Christiaan Brand <cbrand@google.com>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2018 21:13
> *An:* J.C. Jones <jc@mozilla.com>
> *Cc:* Adam Langley <agl@google.com>; Anthony Nadalin <
> tonynad@microsoft.com>; W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Betreff:* 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
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:24:40 UTC

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