Minor cleanups from PR 1270 review

[emlun]

Unresolved discussions from #1270 (review) :

• Improve authenticator taxonomy section #1270 (comment)

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

• Improve authenticator taxonomy section #1270 (comment)

  @equalsJeffH: for "authn on device for first time" -- Add clearer definition of API use cases to the spec  #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?

• Improve authenticator taxonomy section #1270 (comment)

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

• Improve authenticator taxonomy section #1270 (comment)

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

[equalsJeffH]

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

[nadalin]

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

[emlun]

Okay, here goes... 🙂

• #1270 (comment)

@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.

• #1270 (comment)

@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.

• #1270 (comment)

@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.

• #1270 (comment)

@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]

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

[emlun]

• #1270 (comment)

@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.

This was recently obsoleted by #2140 and #2138. I still think the other points are unnecessary as described above. I think we can close this issue.