RE: Draft Charter

I have tried to map the issues to the charter items below, there may be others that map. Thanks for the comments. I did not want to define the issues too deep as that might take us down a path that may exclude things or a specific implementation, I’m fine to add more detail if the WG wants this. As far as secret keys are concerned this may be useful in a recovery situation or in a transaction confirmation case


API Features in scope are: 

(1) Requesting generation of multiple asymmetric key pair within a specific scope (e.g., an origin) with crypto agility and crypto parameter selection; Support for authenticators providing more than one key · Issue #1546 ·  <>  PublicKeyCredentialParameters can't select curve (E.g. ed448) · Issue #1446 · w3c/webauthn ( <>  

(2) Proving that the browser has possession of a specific private key, where the proof can only be done within the scope of the key pair. In other words, authentication should obey the same origin policy; 

(3) Remote desktop (lights out operations) ability;  Support for remote desktops · Issue #1577 · w3c/webauthn ( <>  Add recovery extension by emlun · Pull Request #1425 · w3c/webauthn ( <> 

(4) Ability to allow a non- modal UI; Add support for non-modal UI · Issue #1545 · w3c/webauthn ( <> 

(5) Binding of ambient credentials; 

(6) Re-authentication from the discretion of the replying party;  Adding info about HSTS for the RPID to client Data. · Issue #1554 · w3c/webauthn ( <> 

(7) Dynamic Linking of authentication credentials.          double check whether the Secure Payment Confirmation effort has implications on the WebAuthn spec · Issue #1492 · w3c/webauthn ( <> 






From: Adam Langley <> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:45 AM
Cc: W3C Web Authn WG <>; John Fontana <>; Wendy Seltzer <>
Subject: Re: Draft Charter


On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:04 AM < <> > wrote:

Here is a marked-up version of the charter to review. Please post comments to the list.


What motivates the addition of "cryptographic agility and crypto parameter selection"?


Where it says "modal UI" it should say "non-modal". 


(6) is defined twice.


More generally, (4)-(6) seem like they would be difficult to interpret by someone who's not already familiar with ongoing discussions behind them. (For example, I'm not sure what they mean.) But perhaps that's fine.


In light of the PRF discussion last time, do we wish to bring storing secret keys in scope this time?










Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2021 17:19:25 UTC