Re: Qualcomm position- Extensions

Out of curiosity, Giri, how does the W3C deal with interoperability 
issues if:

  * Extensions are optional (even if they are normative text); and
  * The W3C Directorate issues a waiver on the specification without any
    confirmation/validation of interoperability of the optional extensions?

Is there some other process the W3C uses to confirm that there are 
interoperable implementations of extensions long after the waiver has 
been granted and the specification has been published? Is this just 
carried over to a new version of the specification? Something else?

Thanks.

-- 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/kzP27HpzWiG_tv9tbccrvO3hR-gKs5gos7Xx-L7doe1hv8jTi_o3Ca0bFz4addIV9Ocadcmw0ScPNYDFfzGjFCRJd5SxQRMynMWvXxPuAeWjqZOpr5QgL5s6MqP9_whohw 
<https://strongkey.com/>

	

*
Arshad Noor **|*CTO
*S**T**R**O**N**G**K**E**Y*

408.331.2000
strongkey.com <https://strongkey.com/>
Cupertino, CA



On 12/05/2018 08:16 AM, Giridhar Mandyam wrote:
>
> 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.
>