We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
In order for RP to know if a credential can be used on a iOS device, we need to add new transport enumerators to Section 5.10.4.
We need one for the physical lightning connector, and one for the HID transport encapsulation.
Currently, we have usb, ble, nfc, and internal.
Strings to add lightning tunnel (it could be more specific but I don't want to step on any trademarks for the External Accessory Framework.)
Are we missing an entry for caBLE?
This should be relatively uncontroversial, however agreeing on the sting value could take us months:)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From call of 2019-07-17: throw name suggestions here. I suggest “tunnel” → tunnel-usb or tunnel-hid
Sorry, something went wrong.
In further conversations with AGL on the use of transports, we settled on a single value "lightning"
lightning Indicates the respective authenticator can be contacted over removable Lightning.
Add lightning transport (#1264)
30d3e9f
* Update index.bs Add lightning transport Fixes #1261 * Update index.bs Fix missing comma
ve7jtb
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
In order for RP to know if a credential can be used on a iOS device, we need to add new transport enumerators to Section 5.10.4.
We need one for the physical lightning connector, and one for the HID transport encapsulation.
Currently, we have usb, ble, nfc, and internal.
Strings to add
lightning
tunnel (it could be more specific but I don't want to step on any trademarks for the External Accessory Framework.)
Are we missing an entry for caBLE?
This should be relatively uncontroversial, however agreeing on the sting value could take us months:)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: