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

Minor cleanups from PR 1270 review #1291

Open
emlun opened this issue Sep 4, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Minor cleanups from PR 1270 review #1291

emlun opened this issue Sep 4, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
priority:low @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 type:editorial
Milestone

Comments

@emlun
Copy link
Contributor

emlun commented Sep 4, 2019

Unresolved discussions from #1270 (review) :

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

this is a very minor nice-to-have issue, can be addressed in a milestone later than wd-03 or not at all.

@equalsJeffH equalsJeffH added the stat:puntable Issue or PR that is candidate to move to a later milestone label Jul 1, 2020
@nadalin nadalin removed the stat:puntable Issue or PR that is candidate to move to a later milestone label Jul 21, 2020
@nadalin
Copy link
Contributor

nadalin commented Sep 30, 2020

@emlun To look to see if this is still in play

@emlun
Copy link
Contributor Author

emlun commented Oct 7, 2020

Okay, here goes... 🙂

@equalsJeffH: I'm thinking we ought to formalize the term "re-authentication" ( "re-auth" for short -- see also issue #334) and use it instead of "repeated [=authentication=]"

I'm not sure it's worth introducing a formal term for this, I think it's clear enough without it.

@equalsJeffH: for "authn on device for first time" -- #334 uses term "bootstrap" (goog folks r partial to that term) some folks use the term "introduction" for it...
@emlun: I feel like that would require a proper definition of "bootstrap", and I'm not sure we'd use the term enough for it to be worth it. What do you think?

Same here, I think "first time" is clear enough without needing to introduce a formal term.

@equalsJeffH: I wonder about this term "first-factor" and whether we ought to really be using "multi-factor" instead...

This one I think might still be relevant. "Multi-factor" would technically be more accurate, but on the other hand "first-factor" highlights that it can be used as the first step of an authentication procedure. I'm not sure if there's one that's clearly "better" than the other.

@equalsJeffH: s/ time / time (i.e., "bootstrapping" the [=client device=]) / ...?

This seems unnecessary to me as it doesn't really say anything new. Maybe if we were using "bootstrap" elsewhere in the spec, to tie them together, but we currently don't.

@equalsJeffH thoughs on that?

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

thx for your thoughts @emlun, ISTM this is a nice-to-have and puntable to a later spec version, or not at all.

@equalsJeffH equalsJeffH added the stat:puntable Issue or PR that is candidate to move to a later milestone label Oct 13, 2020
@equalsJeffH equalsJeffH modified the milestones: L2-WD-04 Final, L2-CR Nov 11, 2020
@wseltzer wseltzer modified the milestones: L2-CR, L3-WD-01 Feb 18, 2021
@equalsJeffH equalsJeffH removed the stat:puntable Issue or PR that is candidate to move to a later milestone label Mar 17, 2021
@nadalin nadalin added the @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 label Jun 27, 2023
@plehegar plehegar modified the milestones: L3-WD-01, L3-WD-02 Oct 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority:low @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 type:editorial
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants