Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions

Mozilla would prefer that all extensions be optional and normative, even
with another ~4 week delay. However, should the delay be reasonably
expected to be much longer than that, we would agree to mark a set of the
extensions as non-normative to allow us to proceed.

J.C.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:32 AM John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> I don't recall any proposal to remove extensions from the spec.
>
> I think the proposal was to have the AppID extension optional and
> normative because er have interop, and have the other extensions marked
> optional and non normative.
>
> I agree that it would be better to have them as normative, but not if it
> holds up publishing the spec for another month.
>
> At some point we do need to move ahead and publish.   If we need to mark
> some of the extensions as non normitive until the next version of the spec
> I don't think anyone is going to die.  I suspect the browser and
> authnticator vendors will do the correct thing even if they are not
> normative.    If they don't then they will be broken.
>
> I prefer to finish.
>
> John B.
> On 12/5/2018 12:40 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> Despite what has been said on this thread, I strongly believe that the
> extensions in the WebAuthn spec should remain in the WebAuthn spec, even if
> we choose to mark some along the lines as “Proposed extension –
> non-normative”.  The more documents we have, the longer things will take
> overall.
>
>
>
> Also, for the record, it was agreed on the call that all extensions, such
> as AppID, for which we have done explicit interop testing, would continue
> to be normative, even if some other extensions are marked as being proposed
> and non-normative.
>
>
>
>                                                           -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> <tonynad@microsoft.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2018 1:57 PM
> *To:* Christiaan Brand <cbrand@google.com> <cbrand@google.com>; Adam
> Langley <agl@google.com> <agl@google.com>
> *Cc:* W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org> <public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions
>
>
>
> I think the proper question was asked, as if you go back in the meeting
> minutes, the status quo has been per WG to make the extensions normative
> and that has been the path, thus I’m asking if anyone wants to change that
> path, so far I heard mixed results with no clear consensus.
>
>
>
> *From:* Christiaan Brand <cbrand@google.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2018 10:58 AM
> *To:* Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
> *Cc:* Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>; W3C Web Authn WG <
> public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: IMPORTANT READ - Extensions
>
>
>
> 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
>
>