Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 29, 2022

Conversation

stephenmcgruer
Copy link
Collaborator

@stephenmcgruer stephenmcgruer commented Apr 28, 2022

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

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.
@stephenmcgruer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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 :/

Copy link
Collaborator

@ianbjacobs ianbjacobs left a 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.

spec.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
[[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
Copy link
Collaborator

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"?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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.

@stephenmcgruer stephenmcgruer merged commit 874d9d6 into main Apr 29, 2022
@stephenmcgruer stephenmcgruer deleted the smcgruer/third-party-payment branch April 29, 2022 13:18
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2022
SHA: 874d9d6
Reason: push, by @stephenmcgruer

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants