-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Spec] Add note on SPC opt-in, and misc clarifications #183
Conversation
This PR adds a note about what SPC opt-in means today (required for any use of SPC) versus in our preferred future (required for 3p use of SPC). It also contains a set of small clarifications, e.g. updating the 'steps to silently determine...' to acknowledge that an RP ID will likely be needed.
No major changes here (and nothing normative), just some minor clarifications I felt were useful as I look at how we might change the spec in the medium-term future. I'm hoping to also follow this up with a PR explicitly spec-ing the user-agent caching mechanism, but that may take a while :/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Stephen,
See some minor suggestions and a question or two for your consideration.
[[webauthn-3#relying-party-identifier|Relying Party Identifier]] and a | ||
[=credential ID=], silently (i.e., without user interaction) determine if | ||
the credential represented by that credential ID is available for the | ||
current device (i.e., could be successfully used as part of a WebAuthn |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am wondering about the phrase "current device" here and elsewhere in the API. It might be overly constraining in light of synched credentials and CABLE. Would it be more inclusive to say "current API call"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great question. I'm not sure how best to resolve that yet (maybe worth adding a minor comment to #174), so going to leave for now.
SHA: 874d9d6 Reason: push, by @stephenmcgruer Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR adds a note about what SPC opt-in means today (required for any use of
SPC) versus in our preferred future (required for 3p use of SPC). It also
contains a set of small clarifications, e.g. updating the 'steps to silently
determine...' to acknowledge that an RP ID will likely be needed.
Preview | Diff