Registries for Web Authentication (WebAuthn)
draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-08-05
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-08-03
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-06-25
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-06-15
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-06-12
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-06-12
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-06-05
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-06-05
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-06-05
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-06-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-06-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-06-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2020-06-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-06-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-06-04
|
10 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-06-02
|
10 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my issue. |
2020-06-02
|
10 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-06-01
|
10 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-10.txt |
2020-06-01
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-01
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2020-06-01
|
10 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-05-22
|
09 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-09.txt |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Jones , Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges |
2020-05-22
|
09 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] s/IANA will direct any incoming requests/IANA will direct anyone making incoming requests/ |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] This is really a discuss discuss. With a specification required policy for entries, I think it is quite important to make it clear … [Ballot discuss] This is really a discuss discuss. With a specification required policy for entries, I think it is quite important to make it clear who has change control over the entries in the registries. I would very much recommend that the information required for a registry entry has an explicit change control field. That field should also note the change probably should reside with the body who own the specification that is referenced in the registry entry. |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-05-20
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give … [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give any guidance about what such issues might be, and it would be useful to give some — consider a time in the future when there are new experts who were not around when this stuff was set up. This is not a DISCUSS, so if you really have nothing to say I won’t block on it. But please do consider whether there’s any useful advice to give about what issues might be appropriate “no” material... and that issues explicitly might not. |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give … [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give any guidance about what such issues might be, and it would be useful to give some — consider a time in the future when there are new experts who were not around when this stuff was set up. This is not a DISCUSS, so if you really have nothing to say I won’t block on it. But please do consider whether there’s any useful advice to give about what issues might be appropriate “no” material... and that issues explicitly might not. |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give … [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give any guidance about what such issues might be, and it would be useful to give some — consider a time in the future when there are new experts who were not around when this stuff was set up. This is not a DISCUSS, so if you really have nothing to say I won’t block on it. But please do consider whether there’s any useful advice to give about what issues might be appropriate “no” material... and that issues explicitly might not. |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give … [Ballot comment] For both registries, you say, “The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues which cause a registration to be refused.” You don’t, however, give any guidance about what such issues might be, and it would be useful to give some — consider a time in the future when there are new experts who were not around when this stuff was set up. This is not a DISCUSS, so if you really have nothing to say I won’t block on it. But please do consider whether there’s any useful advice to give about what issues might be appropriate “no” material... and that issues explicitly might not. |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the BCP 14 fix. Looks like these haven't been answered, so I'm leaving them open for possible follow-up: Section 2: * … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the BCP 14 fix. Looks like these haven't been answered, so I'm leaving them open for possible follow-up: Section 2: * Is there a compelling reason to force a particular URL onto IANA? Section 2.1: * "Attestation statement format identifiers are case sensitive. Attestation statement format identifiers may not ... " can be simply "Attestation statement format identifiers are case sensitive and may not ..." Section 2.1.1: * The list of field names in this section and in 2.2.1 are hanging and not really separated from their definitions. I suggest putting back the "o" bullets and following the names by colons, just to make it clear. |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-08.txt |
2020-05-19
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-19
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Jones , Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges |
2020-05-19
|
08 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-19
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-05-19
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document to enable work in W3C. To echo what Murray already noted, Per Section 2, why the specific URL for … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document to enable work in W3C. To echo what Murray already noted, Per Section 2, why the specific URL for the IANA registry? |
2020-05-19
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-05-18
|
07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Looks fine to me, but I'm not really an expert on IANA sections yet ... My only comment is that I also found … [Ballot comment] Looks fine to me, but I'm not really an expert on IANA sections yet ... My only comment is that I also found "USASCII" strange, and probably "ASCII" (listed here https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt) might be better. Regards, Rob |
2020-05-18
|
07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-05-15
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | |
2020-05-15
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Section 2: * It seems to me that the last two paragraphs could be combined, e.g., "For both registries, the expert(s) and IANA … [Ballot comment] Section 2: * It seems to me that the last two paragraphs could be combined, e.g., "For both registries, the expert(s) and IANA will direct ...". * Is there a compelling reason to force a particular URL onto IANA? Section 2.1: * I think "USASCII" should be two words, or hyphenated perhaps, or just "ASCII", unless there's an ABNF token or something to which it refers. * "Attestation statement format identifiers are case sensitive. Attestation statement format identifiers may not ... " can be simply "Attestation statement format identifiers are case sensitive and may not ..." Section 2.1.1: * Are the asterisks around bullet list items an artifact of the new format? This is the second time I've seen it. Guess I'd better get used to it. |
2020-05-15
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-05-15
|
07 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2020-05-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-05-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-05-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-05-21 |
2020-05-14
|
07 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-07.txt |
2020-05-14
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-14
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2020-05-14
|
07 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot has been issued |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-05-14
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-06.txt |
2020-05-14
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-14
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2020-05-14
|
06 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-30
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2020-04-29
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-04-28
|
05 | Sarah Banks | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-27
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, a new registry is to be created called the WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier registry. The new registry will be located on a new registry page for Web Authentication located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/webauthn The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as specified in RFC8126. IANA understands that there are five initial registrations in the new registry as follows: WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier: packed Description: The "packed" attestation statement format is a WebAuthn-optimized format for attestation. It uses a very compact but still extensible encoding method. This format is implementable by authenticators with limited resources (e.g., secure elements). Reference: Section 8.2 Packed Attestation Statement Format in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier: tpm Description: The TPM attestation statement format returns an attestation statement in the same format as the packed attestation statement format, although the rawData and signature fields are computed differently. Reference: Section 8.3 TPM Attestation Statement Format in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier: android-key Description: Platform-provided authenticators based on versions "N", and later, may provide this proprietary "hardware attestation" statement. Reference: Section 8.4 Android Key Attestation Statement Format in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier: android-safetynet Description: Android-based, platform-provided authenticators MAY produce an attestation statement based on the Android SafetyNet API. Reference: Section 8.5 Android SafetyNet Attestation Statement Format in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier: fido-u2f Description: Used with FIDO U2F authenticators Reference: Section 8.6 FIDO U2F Attestation Statement Format in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] Second, a new registry is to be created called the WebAuthn Extension Identifier Registry. The new registry will also be located on the new registry page for Web Authentication located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/webauthn The new registry will be managed via Specification Required as specified in RFC8126. There are eight initial registrations in the new registry as follows: WebAuthn Extension Identifier: appid Description: This authentication extension allows WebAuthn Relying Parties that have previously registered a credential using the legacy FIDO JavaScript APIs to request an assertion. Reference: Section 10.1 FIDO AppID Extension (appid) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: txAuthSimple Description: This registration extension and authentication extension allows for a simple form of transaction authorization. A WebAuthn Relying Party can specify a prompt string, intended for display on a trusted device on the authenticator Reference: Section 10.2 Simple Transaction Authorization Extension (txAuthSimple) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: txAuthGeneric Description: This registration extension and authentication extension allows images to be used as transaction authorization prompts as well. This allows authenticators without a font rendering engine to be used and also supports a richer visual appearance than accomplished with the webauthn.txauth.simple extension. Reference: Section 10.3 Generic Transaction Authorization Extension (txAuthGeneric) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: authnSel Description: This registration extension allows a WebAuthn Relying Party to guide the selection of the authenticator that will be leveraged when creating the credential. It is intended primarily for WebAuthn Relying Parties that wish to tightly control the experience around credential creation. Reference: Section 10.4 Authenticator Selection Extension (authnSel) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: exts Description: This registration extension enables the WebAuthn Relying Party to determine which extensions the authenticator supports. The extension data is a list (CBOR array) of extension identifiers encoded as UTF-8 Strings. This extension is added automatically by the authenticator. This extension can be added to attestation statements. Reference: Section 10.5 Supported Extensions Extension (exts) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: uvi Description: This registration extension and authentication extension enables use of a user verification index. The user verification index is a value uniquely identifying a user verification data record. The UVI data can be used by servers to understand whether an authentication was authorized by the exact same biometric data as the initial key generation. This allows the detection and prevention of "friendly fraud". Reference: Section 10.6 User Verification Index Extension (uvi) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: loc Description: The location registration extension and authentication extension provides the client device's current location to the WebAuthn Relying Party, if supported by the client platform and subject to user consent. Reference: Section 10.7 Location Extension (loc) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] WebAuthn Extension Identifier: uvm Description: This registration extension and authentication extension enables use of a user verification method. The user verification method extension returns to the WebAuthn Relying Party which user verification methods (factors) were used for the WebAuthn operation. Reference: Section 10.8 User Verification Method Extension (uvm) in [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/] The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-04-13
|
05 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2020-04-07
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2020-04-07
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2020-04-03
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2020-04-03
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2020-04-03
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-04-03
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: kaduk@mit.edu, draft-hodges-webauthn-registries@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-29): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: kaduk@mit.edu, draft-hodges-webauthn-registries@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Registries for Web Authentication (WebAuthn)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Registries for Web Authentication (WebAuthn)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-04-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines IANA registries for W3C Web Authentication attestation statement format identifiers and extension identifiers. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hodges-webauthn-registries/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hodges-webauthn-registries/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call was requested |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-04-01
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-03-06
|
05 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-05.txt |
2020-03-06
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-06
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2020-03-06
|
05 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-12
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-12-12
|
04 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-04.txt |
2019-12-12
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-12-12
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2019-12-12
|
04 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-12
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-10-18
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested |
2019-10-18
|
03 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-18
|
03 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-03.txt |
2019-10-18
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-18
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Giridhar Mandyam , Jeff Hodges , Michael Jones |
2019-10-18
|
03 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-12
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-06-13
|
02 | Benjamin Kaduk | Shepherding AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-03-11
|
02 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-02.txt |
2019-03-11
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-11
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Hodges , Giridhar Mandyam , Michael Jones |
2019-03-11
|
02 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-01
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-28
|
01 | Michael Jones | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-01.txt |
2018-02-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeff Hodges , Giridhar Mandyam , Michael Jones |
2018-02-28
|
01 | Michael Jones | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-28
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-03-29
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Shepherding AD changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-03-29
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2017-03-29
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2017-03-27
|
00 | Jeff Hodges | New version available: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-00.txt |
2017-03-27
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-27
|
00 | Jeff Hodges | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: "Michael B. Jones" , Jeff Hodges , Giridhar Mandyam |
2017-03-27
|
00 | Jeff Hodges | Uploaded new revision |