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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix #668: Recommend RPs to verify UP and UV flags #670

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Feb 9, 2018
Merged

Fix #668: Recommend RPs to verify UP and UV flags #670

merged 9 commits into from
Feb 9, 2018

Conversation

emlun
Copy link
Member

@emlun emlun commented Nov 3, 2017 •
edited by pr-preview bot
Loading

This resolves #668.

Preview | Diff

@emlun emlun added this to the PR milestone Nov 3, 2017
@emlun emlun self-assigned this Nov 3, 2017
rlin1
rlin1 approved these changes Nov 22, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rlin1 rlin1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

a merge-from-master may resolve the build issue?

The content of the proposed changes seem to expect that if the authnr performs user verification that it returns both UV & UP bits set. and if it performs only a user presence test then it returns only UP bit set. Has that been firmly decided?

@emlun
Copy link
Member Author

emlun commented Nov 22, 2017

@equalsJeffH You're right in the case of the registration operation; and no, that hasn't been decided. Will fix.

@emlun
Copy link
Member Author

emlun commented Nov 22, 2017

Updated so the UP/UV logic agrees with what the client does. @rlin1 please re-review, since the logic has changed.

@emlun emlun mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2018
Merged
@nadalin
Copy link
Contributor

nadalin commented Feb 6, 2018

@emlun can you fix conflict and merge

@selfissued
Copy link
Contributor

@emlun after you fix the conflicts can you please want a day before merging? I'd like to review what the actual changes are, which are currently nearly impossibly to discern because of all the numbering changes. Thanks.

@emlun
Copy link
Member Author

emlun commented Feb 6, 2018

@selfissued Will do.

@emlun emlun requested a review from selfissued February 6, 2018 10:07
@emlun
Copy link
Member Author

emlun commented Feb 8, 2018

@selfissued I'll go ahead and merge this if you don't object by 2018-02-09 09:00Z.

@emlun emlun merged commit 2bc4c05 into master Feb 9, 2018
@emlun emlun deleted the issue-668 branch February 9, 2018 23:04
WebAuthnBot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2018
Built by Travis-CI: 2bc4c05 Merge pull request #670 from w3c/issue-668
b465600
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rlin1 rlin1 rlin1 approved these changes

@selfissued selfissued Awaiting requested review from selfissued

Assignees

@emlun emlun

Labels
priority:low type:editorial
Projects
None yet
Milestone
PropRec
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Recommend RPs to verify UP and UV flags
5 participants
@emlun @equalsJeffH @nadalin @selfissued @rlin1