Peter: any with more context?

Jeffrey: if this could replace fedcm that would be great.. but not evidence either way that it's going to... so swe should support experimenting with it...

This was discussed in our recent plenary too: https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2024/telcons/09-02-minutes.md#plenary

Tess: it sounds like the complexity missing is in the "we're not going to need it" category.. if in practice nobody is using it then why do it?

Jeffrey: Sam feels that some IDPs have (legal) requirements... e.g. changing your name would propagate to all places immediately... remains to be see...

Hadley: which legal requirements?

Peter: right to be forgotten laws?

Hadley: most legal restrictions are reactive to the work we do, rather than creating boundaries within which we have to operate...

Tess: seems unnecessary to anticipate a regulatory...

Jeffrey: regulators have already said some things... E.g. opt out links... I can ask Sam for more details... I don't know if it changes much about our review of this API...

Hadley: can we more specific about outstanding questions? Outstanding questions in the working/community group?

Peter: In general I feel a bit lost on FedCM, given all the little reviews on it... This to me seems to be "throw all that out and start over" - and leads me even more confused...

Hadley: I also felt that way with next issue - 992.

Peter: that issue talks about fedcm as a trust signal for shared storage... I don't want to see that... Pushes us back to 3p cookie world.

Hadley: seconded (for issue 992)

Peter: other thing that occured: I think one of the biggest problem is lack of consistent support of single sign-off. Leads to user confusion about where you're logged in... Feels like leaving it as option means people won'd do it. I wonder if FedCM should require the background comms to make that work. I'm wondering if making it slightly more complicated to require comms between the IDPs should be a hard requirement from day 1?

Jeffrey: that's a concrete question - lightweight one doesn't allow for single sign-off..

Peter: I think that would be bad.

Hadley: comment looks good.

Peter: do we want to go farther and recommend that single sign-off shouldn't be optional.

Tess: i think not having it is an argument for it not being a total replacement for the heavy-weight one...

Peter: should we close?

Tess: yes I think we should - as it's an early review request...

Peter: I'm fine with closing it.

Dan: +1

<blockquote>

We're happy to see this sort of experimentation with the FedCM problem space. It looks like there are outstanding questions in the Community Group about whether the Lightweight API will be enough to completely replace the existing proposal. We wondered whether this approach can enable single sign-out, and if it can't, that's a strong argument against it completely replacing the existing API. We look forward to the outcome of the testing you have planned.

</blockquote>

amy to leave the feedback and close