Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

2019-09-20 Thread J.C. Jones
The additional time for the WebAuthn working group is overall good and worth supporting. The bulk of the additional work to be done is focused on improving the ergonomics of the existing Level 1 spec, both for developers and for individuals using the capabilities within their lives. On Wed, Sep 1

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

2016-01-08 Thread L. David Baron
On Saturday 2016-01-09 07:22 +1100, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2016-01-07 10:14 -0800, Richard Barnes wrote: > > Obviously, given the earlier FIDO thread here, I think this is good work to > > support. > > > > I think the charter is in pretty good shape. The only comment I have is > > th

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

2016-01-08 Thread L. David Baron
On Thursday 2016-01-07 10:14 -0800, Richard Barnes wrote: > Obviously, given the earlier FIDO thread here, I think this is good work to > support. > > I think the charter is in pretty good shape. The only comment I have is > that it talks about "attestations" without defining what is being attest

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

2016-01-08 Thread Richard Barnes
You might note that the charter already says "Dependencies exist on the Credential Management API ..." :) The credentials API defines a framework that allows for multiple types of credential. So I think the concept is that this WG is likely

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

2016-01-07 Thread Jonas Sicking
What is the relationship between this WG and the spec draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/ Seems like there's potential for integration between the two? / Jonas On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > Obviously, given the earlier FIDO thread here, I think thi