Re: Qualcomm position- Extensions

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:43 AM Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
wrote:

> > 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?
>

Google is suggesting that we should make *all* extensions non-normative
because it unblocks things and we believe that it doesn't make any
difference in practice.

The alternative is to try and make extensions normative. I could have
misunderstood, but I think the issue there was that the W3C wants to see
interoperability for normative parts of the spec. But then some extensions
defined in the spec would still be non-normative because there are not
enough implementations to demonstrate interoperability. In fact, I suspect
that only the appid extension meets that bar.


Cheers

AGL


>
>
> -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>
> 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.
>