- From: Ranjiva Prasad via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:42:46 +0000
- To: public-webauthn@w3.org
@emlun Given that the UVI and UVM extensions are the IANA registry, I would recommend that they be added back into the L3 spec. Continuing to leave them out of the spec creates confusion i.e. if they exist in IANA then why are they not listed in a W3C spec. If I was an authenticator, I would be wary of implementing something in IANA but not in the spec because I would question how committed that WG is to that feature. So it should be in IANA and the spec, or in neither. I agree it should be an extension though. Although I understand that no platforms have implemented to date that situation could also change, as organisations such as myself bring new use cases to the WG. The presence of the extensions in IANA appears to indicate a commitment by the WebAuthn WG to support those extensions. That commitment should be formalised in the spec, even if there are currently no implmentations. This is consistent with the use of the term extension. We don’t expect every authenticator to implement them. I also think that the UVI and UVM extensions should be combined. The UVI extension delivers meta-data on the UVM used and so could easily be included in the UVM extension. I can’t see why UVI would be used without UVM, or at the very least there is some overlap between both which justifies a rationalisation -- GitHub Notification of comment by ranjivaprasadvisa Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1890#issuecomment-1594810062 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 14:42:48 UTC