Qualcomm position- Extensions

Qualcomm does not recommend changing the current position of the group.  I realize the request below only sought a response if a member company wanted to change the position of the group, but I felt it was important to re-iterate Qualcomm's position.

This is consistent with the presentation I made to the W3C Directorate in October - see enclosed.  The recommendations are summarized on slide 10 and reproduced here:


  *   Continue to keep normative guidance in spec that all extensions are optional
  *   Follow Sam's suggestion to specify AAID extension as RECOMMENDED  {"Sam" = Sam Weiler}
  *   Keep all extension text as normative
  *   Overall:  as per Process 2018, request Directorate for a waiver on Implementation Experience for extensions

Note that as a previous W3C Working Group chair myself, I understand the quandaries that a feature like extensions presents when trying to follow W3C process and associated interoperability requirements.  I believe all WG member companies were aware of the challenges.  This is why I recommended that the Directorate provide a waiver of the group (which is also consistent with process).

I also think that this issue and the eventual WG decision is sufficiently substantial that it would be better if any call-for-consensus be on a company basis, not on an individual one.  Therefore I would request that "WG member" be clarified as "WG member company", so that company positions be recorded rather than individual opinions.

-Giri Mandyam, Qualcomm Advisory Committee Representative to the W3C

From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2018 11:05 PM
To: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

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.