W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > December 2018

RE: Qualcomm position- Extensions

From: Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:43:45 +0000
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CC: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c0aa2fa5e8aa4d12bbbb8a8c9d46db0d@NASANEXM01C.na.qualcomm.com>
> Note: I believe that only the appid extension would be normative in any case, because that's the only extension with sufficient implementation.

To clarify:  that was not my recommendation.  I assume that this the above is Google’s recommendation – correct?

-Giri

From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Qualcomm position- Extensions

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:18 AM Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com<mailto:mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>> 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
Note: I believe that only the appid extension would be normative in any case, because that's the only extension with sufficient implementation.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2018 18:44:10 UTC

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