See also: IRC log
<apowers> btw, I've started developing WebAuthn tests: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/webauthn
<wseltzer> aha, excellent
<apowers> information on running tests here: http://testthewebforward.org/docs/running_tests.html
<apowers> and anyone willing to "lgtm" my pull requests gets my eternal love and affection: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4120
<weiler> scribenick: Weiler
<apowers> alexei: I'm going to have to send you a beer of the month club... I don't see you irl enough to pay all my debts
<angelo> I will scribe for the
<angelo> meeting today
<wseltzer> scribenick: angelo
we are on RP: add a FIDO appid extension for the U2F
Vijay and Alex both added comments to the RP 229
<wseltzer> 243
<rbarnes> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/243
<wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/213
We are now on another RP: the RP 243, which was meant to address #213
<wseltzer> alexei, is that https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/244 ?
Vijay proposes to make attestation more vague. Alex believes it is a good proposal for it is easier for the client. Other folks in the group should take a take at Vijay's email on this proposal
We are now on issue #244
Vijay proposed to remove expicit public issue out of ScopedCredentialInfo
in the issue #244
Alex believes the current attestation formats can be confusing because each contains public key and encodes public keys differently.
The struggle here is whether we should ask the authenticator or the client to do the work to provide a public key for the RP to use
More comments on #244 will be added
<wseltzer> PRs: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pulls
Question: when do we plan to publish a draft again?
On the attestation issue, Google plans to start implementating and then come back to give a decision based on implementation experience
If we plan to get to CR by the end of the year, it'd be helpful to have more face-to-face time again
<wseltzer> wseltzer: note that charter ends in February 2017, so we should discuss extension
Ryan from Intel is here as well
<rbarnes> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/88
We are on to issue #88
<rbarnes> https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/102
Now we are on to issue #102
We will wait for a while until we can start discussing #88
There are several issues regarding attestation but not much issue regarding assertion
We are on to issue #219
More comments will be added on issue #219
<wseltzer> [adjourned]
<weiler> s/ScribeNick: Weiler//
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/ScribeNick: Weiler// Found ScribeNick: Weiler WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Weiler> ... Found ScribeNick: angelo Inferring Scribes: Weiler, angelo Scribes: Weiler, angelo ScribeNicks: Weiler, angelo WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: (no, one), weiler, rrware, rbarnes, wseltzer, JohnFontana, RobTrace, Angelo, alexei-goog) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ weiler, rrware, rbarnes, wseltzer, JohnFontana, RobTrace, Angelo, alexei-goog Present: weiler rrware rbarnes wseltzer JohnFontana RobTrace Angelo alexei-goog Rolf jcj_moz Regrets: jcj JeffH vgb Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2016Nov/0005.html Found Date: 02 Nov 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-webauthn-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]