WebAuthn API Specification Review

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WebAuthn API Specification Review

Anthony Nadalin-2

WebAuthn members and interested parties,

 

The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

 

This specification defines an API that enables web pages to access WebAuthn compliant strong cryptographic credentials through browser script.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webauthn-20160531/

 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to [hidden email] with [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are welcome.

 

Further sharing of this call for wide review among other interested communities is encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Richard Barnes and Anthony Nadalin

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

Phillips, Addison-2

Hello Anthony,

 

Thank you for this request. I have updated our review radar [1]. Can you please clarify by what dates you would like to receive comments? “Aiming for CR in September” is imprecise as a way for a horizontal group such as I18N to target doing reviews. If I use 1 September as a target date, we have only two weeks to read and comment on the spec, which is difficult for I18N WG to absorb without warning.

 

Thanks,

 

Addison

 

[1] http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/radar/

 

Addison Phillips

Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)

Chair (W3C I18N WG)

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

 

 

From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:15 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

WebAuthn members and interested parties,

 

The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

 

This specification defines an API that enables web pages to access WebAuthn compliant strong cryptographic credentials through browser script.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webauthn-20160531/

 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to [hidden email] with [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are welcome.

 

Further sharing of this call for wide review among other interested communities is encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Richard Barnes and Anthony Nadalin

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

Anthony Nadalin-2

To clarify we are aiming for CR at the TPAC meeting.  

 

From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

Hello Anthony,

 

Thank you for this request. I have updated our review radar [1]. Can you please clarify by what dates you would like to receive comments? “Aiming for CR in September” is imprecise as a way for a horizontal group such as I18N to target doing reviews. If I use 1 September as a target date, we have only two weeks to read and comment on the spec, which is difficult for I18N WG to absorb without warning.

 

Thanks,

 

Addison

 

[1] http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/radar/

 

Addison Phillips

Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)

Chair (W3C I18N WG)

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

 

 

From: Anthony Nadalin [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:15 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

WebAuthn members and interested parties,

 

The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

 

This specification defines an API that enables web pages to access WebAuthn compliant strong cryptographic credentials through browser script.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webauthn-20160531/

 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to [hidden email] with [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are welcome.

 

Further sharing of this call for wide review among other interested communities is encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Richard Barnes and Anthony Nadalin

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebAuthn API Specification Review

Anne van Kesteren-4
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> To clarify we are aiming for CR at the TPAC meeting.

Based on a quick review (I submitted some feedback via GitHub), it
doesn't quite seem editorially ready for that.

It's also still unclear to me that we as a community embraced
extending the reach of cookies (public suffix reach) to other APIs.
Last I checked, e.g., exposing something as simple as an API for
public suffix was still taboo.


--
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

Richard Schwerdtfeger
In reply to this post by Anthony Nadalin-2
HI Tony,
 
I hope you are well. It was nice to see your name again.
 
I understand that the spec. is not in CR yet, but can you tell me to what degree this spec. has been implemented in browsers as of today? ... what support does it currently have by browser vendors?
 
Thanks,
Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
----- Original message -----
From: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2016 2:37 PM
 

To clarify we are aiming for CR at the TPAC meeting.  

 

From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

Hello Anthony,

 

Thank you for this request. I have updated our review radar [1]. Can you please clarify by what dates you would like to receive comments? “Aiming for CR in September” is imprecise as a way for a horizontal group such as I18N to target doing reviews. If I use 1 September as a target date, we have only two weeks to read and comment on the spec, which is difficult for I18N WG to absorb without warning.

 

Thanks,

 

Addison

 

[1] http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/radar/

 

Addison Phillips

Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)

Chair (W3C I18N WG)

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

 

 

From: Anthony Nadalin [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:15 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

WebAuthn members and interested parties,

 

The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

 

This specification defines an API that enables web pages to access WebAuthn compliant strong cryptographic credentials through browser script.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webauthn-20160531/

 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to [hidden email] with [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are welcome.

 

Further sharing of this call for wide review among other interested communities is encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Richard Barnes and Anthony Nadalin

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebAuthn API Specification Review

r12a
In reply to this post by Anthony Nadalin-2
On 16/08/2016 20:15, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in
> September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

...

> If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them
> to [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> with
> [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are
> welcome.

hello Richard and Anthony

one thing that would help us turn around the review faster is for you to
do a self-review, using our checklist at

https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs?collapse


this checklist is still work in progress, but should cover a number of
topics reasonably well.  The checklist points to more detailed
information for each guideline, where available, but it is derived from
a larger document that you might to read, at

https://w3c.github.io/bp-i18n-specdev/

i wonder whether you or your group could work through that, looking for
things that are relevant to your spec, and let us know if you need
clarifications or help?

cheers,
Richard Ishida.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

Anthony Nadalin-2
In reply to this post by Richard Schwerdtfeger

There are various levels of  implementations in Chrome and Edge but none at the current spec level (that I’m aware of), maybe Richard can comment on Mozilla.

 

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:26 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

HI Tony,

 

I hope you are well. It was nice to see your name again.

 

I understand that the spec. is not in CR yet, but can you tell me to what degree this spec. has been implemented in browsers as of today? ... what support does it currently have by browser vendors?

 

Thanks,

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2016 2:37 PM
 

To clarify we are aiming for CR at the TPAC meeting.  

 

From: Phillips, Addison [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

Hello Anthony,

 

Thank you for this request. I have updated our review radar [1]. Can you please clarify by what dates you would like to receive comments? “Aiming for CR in September” is imprecise as a way for a horizontal group such as I18N to target doing reviews. If I use 1 September as a target date, we have only two weeks to read and comment on the spec, which is difficult for I18N WG to absorb without warning.

 

Thanks,

 

Addison

 

[1] http://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/radar/

 

Addison Phillips

Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)

Chair (W3C I18N WG)

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

 

 

From: Anthony Nadalin [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:15 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: WebAuthn API Specification Review

 

WebAuthn members and interested parties,

 

The WebAuthn WG recently published its FPWD and is aiming for CR in September and is asking for wide review of the specification.

 

This specification defines an API that enables web pages to access WebAuthn compliant strong cryptographic credentials through browser script.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webauthn-20160531/

 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to [hidden email] with [public-webauthn] at the start of your email's subject. All comments are welcome.

 

Further sharing of this call for wide review among other interested communities is encouraged.

 

Thank you,

 

Richard Barnes and Anthony Nadalin