W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 2 April 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:40:39 -0400
Message-Id: <B50FE922-4217-4F4A-AA28-1F0244C1849E@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the April 2 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:

   <http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html>

WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 16 April 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  
Approved.

-Regards, Art Barstow

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

02 Apr 2009

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0006.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Art, Frederick, Mike, Marcos, Arve, Andy, David, Mark, Benoit

    Regrets
           Robin

    Chair
           Art

    Scribe
           ArtB

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Widget publication plan for 2Q-09:
          4. [8]DigSig: Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD
          5. [9]DigSig: Issues inventory, actions, plans
          6. [10]P&C: Planning
          7. [11]P&C: Simple approach for <access>
          8. [12]P&C: <access> and URI equivalence
          9. [13]P&C: Move <update> element to the Updates spec?
         10. [14]A&E: Planning
         11. [15]A&E: plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues
         12. [16]URI scheme
         13. [17]AOB
      * [18]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <scribe> Scribe: ArtB

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Date: 2 April 2009

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: draft agenda posted on April 1
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/00
    06.html
    ... Any change requests?

      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0006.html

    FH: re DigSig want to add some items

    AB: OK
    ... any other change requests?

    [ None ]

Announcements

    AB: DigSig WD published on March 31. Good work Frederick, Marcos,
    Mark and the rest of you!
    ... any other short announcements?

    [ None ]

Widget publication plan for 2Q-09:

    AB: I attended the March 30 BONDI Steering Group meeting and
    provided a short summary of my expectations for our publishing plans
    for the rest of 2Q-09. Yesterday I sent that plan to the public mail
    list (and no, it wasn't an "April Fool's" joke). See:
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/00
    05.html

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009AprJun/0005.html

    <mpriestl> {can't join conference bridge... trying again)

    AB: any general comments on that plan? My preference regarding
    issues for a specific spec, is to defer detailed discussion until we
    get to the appropriate place in the agenda.

    FH: general concern about the excellerated schedule for DigSig
    ... mandatory algorithms can take more than one month
    ... need to some consistency
    ... Do algorithms need to be frozen before LC?

    <mpriestl> (sorry can I check that the following are correct
    +1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1"))

    AB: good questions. How about you, me, Mike and Thomas take this
    offline and talk about scenarios

    FH: the concern is that XML Sec WG may not agree with our schedule

    <marcos> akim, what's the passcode?

    FH: do you agree this is an excellerated schedule?

    <marcos> mpriestl: ^^^

    FH: they may have a real issue with us doing this so fast re
    algorithms
    ... the decision will depend on implementations
    ... we don't know resource commitments yet

    <mpriestl> (success! thanks Marcos)

    <fjh> A concern with the proposed last call schedule is that we may
    not have a final decision on mandatory algorithms in time.

    AB: re excellerated, we could debate that. Again, I think we should
    take this offline and talk about the various scenarios

    <fjh> The reason for this is that this decision will depend in part
    on the ability of stakeholders to implement the algorithms that are
    required.

    <fjh> This knowledge will require some to allocate resources to
    determine what is involved.

    <fjh> This will take some time.

    <fjh> The XML Security WG is working on this but I doubt will have
    this information very quickly since it is a decision that requires
    more information.

    <fjh> It would help to accelerate this decision making process if
    members of the Web Applications Working Group

    <fjh> who sent comments and feedback regarding algorithms, such as
    Elliptic Curve, to send those comments directly

    <fjh> to the XML Security WG comments list at

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith
    re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Work with Frederick, Thomas and
    MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [on
    Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].

    <fjh> public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org

    MC: did we reach consensus on ECC?

    FH: no
    ... we have had some discussions

    MC: of the ones we listed, are they controversial?

    FH: DSA has some controversy

    <fjh> The concern is that DSA may have some of the same risks as
    RSA, making it less suitable if an issue is discovered with RSA

DigSig: Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD

    <fjh> The concerns with ECDSA include availability of
    implementations and potential IPR risks.

    AB: first question is who besides XML Sec WG and BONDI should be
    included in the request for comments? Another question is do we need
    announcement on public-webapps?
    ... FH, any other WG?

    FH: not sure who would be appropriate

    AB: any other suggestions?

    MC: maybe MWBP but I don't feel strongly

    AB: annouce on public-webapps?

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on
    public-webapps [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Annouce 31 March DigSig spec on
    public-webapps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].

DigSig: Issues inventory, actions, plans

    AB: let's quickly look at the inventory of Issues and Actions for
    DigSig and look for "what's missing" rather than actually doing a
    deep dive: [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
    ... we can track the Issues in the spec or by Tracker; I'm mostly
    indifferent provided the issues are documented. Let's start with
    Issues. Are there any major issues that are not captured? Last
    Editor's Draft is [24]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8
      [24] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/

    <fjh> I strongly request algorithm comments be sent to XML Security
    WG, public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org

    MC: want Mark to help clarify Issue #83

    MP: I was under the impression this should be closed
    ... I sent an email about this

    MC: I couldn't find any trace
    ... in the mail archive
    ... We agreed we didn't think it was a problem

    AB: we can close this now, Mark, if that is your pref

    MP: I don't think this is a real issue
    ... I am OK with a resolution that we don't do anything about it
    ... I will find the email and then either resend or agree to close
    it

    AB: FH, what issues need to be captured

    FH: please, Everyone, send comments about algorithms to the XML Sec
    WG
    ... that will help with Iss #81
    ... two more issues
    ... one is related to authoring
    ... an issue there is what is legally binding

    <marcos> ... to do with the semantics of "author"

    FH: the wording has people a bit concerned

    AB: how do we handle this Issue, or email?

    FH: I can handle this via email

    <scribe> ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring
    issue [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Send an email to address this
    authoring issue [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-04-09].

    FH: the other issue is the alignment of the requirements

    MC: I have aligned the two docs now
    ... I abstracted the req a bit

    <fjh> R52 ok?

    MC: I also changed the numbers in the DigSig ED so they align with
    the numbers in the Reqs doc

    FH: not sure R#52 is correct

    <fjh> [26]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax

      [26] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax

    <marcos>
    [27]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple-signatures-and
    -certificate-chains

      [27] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple- 
signatures-and-certificate-chains

    <fjh> [28]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements

      [28] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements

    FH: we just need to tweak the DigSig spec to match

    <fjh> all those in requirements doc look like R1?

    MC: I think the alignment is done

    <fjh> R52. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms: DSA-SHA-1,
    RSA-SHA-1, DSA-SHA-256 and RSA-SHA-256.

    MC: I don't think we need to change anything in the digsig spec
    ... sorry, I understand now
    ... I do need to change the Reqs doc

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with
    the Reqs doc [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Make sure the DigSig spec is aligned
    with the Reqs doc [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-04-09].

    MP: I think it is good to use the new abstraction
    ... but in the spec we need to be more specific, as we've done
    ... must have at least one mandatory algorithm
    ... I think what we now have is OK

    AB: if you have any comments please submit them
    ... we want BONDI to submit comments ASAP

    DR: yes, I will take that message to BONDI

    AB: David, you also have an open Action to get BONDI to supply
    feedback re the algorithms

    FH: David, if people could send comments to XML Sec WG that would be
    good

    AB: any other Dig Sig topics for today?

    FH: no, I think we've covered them

P&C: Planning

    AB: any comments on the P&C publication plans I sent yesterday?

    MC: I think they are OK, fingers-crossed and such

    AB: anyone else?

    [ None ]

P&C: Simple approach for <access>

    AB: is Robin here?

    DR: I think IRC only

    AB: last week Robin submitted a proposal for the <access> element
    [30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/09
    43.html Any comments?

      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JanMar/0943.html

    <drogersuk> Robin is in the OMTP meeting at the moment

    AB: any general comments?
    ... hearing none, please send comments to the mail list

    MC: it is similar to what we've alreday proposed
    ... that is, it is similar to what Opera had already proposed
    ... we will work with Robin on this

    MP: it is similar to what has already been proposed with perhaps a
    few additional restrictions
    ... e.g. the wildcard
    ... we need to review the wildcard change

    AB: any other comments?
    ... David, please let BONDI know we seek comments on this as soon as
    possible

    DR: yes, we know about this and given the BONDI meeting this week,
    we won't get comments to the group until next week

P&C: <access> and URI equivalence

    AB: last week Thomas started a thread on <access> and URI
    equivalence
    [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/09
    35.html Any comments?
    ... Thomas isn't here
    ... Marcos, what is the relationship between Robin's proposal and
    TLR's proposal?

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
2009JanMar/0935.html

    MC: it is related to the URI proposal
    ... but I'm not sure what Thomas' proposal is about; relates to Dan
    C's Web URL proposal

    <marcos>
    [32]http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/008373680ca
    e/wah5/draft.html

      [32] http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/ 
008373680cae/wah5/draft.html

    MC: I think it's called Web Addresses in HTML5

P&C: Move <update> element to the Updates spec?

    AB: The P&C spec defines the <update> element but defers the
    processing model to the Updates spec. I'd like to discuss the pros
    and cons of moving the definition of this element to the Updates
    spec and thus P&C would contain no reference(s) to the Updates spec.
    Given the P&C's extensibility model supports elements being defined
    in a separate spec, this can be easily done (from an Editorial
    perspective). I think the clear advantage of doing this is that it
    removes

    BS: until the PAG has reviewed this, I'm not sure this is a good
    idea
    ... I think what we've specified is similar to what FF has defined

    DR: is the Updates spec frozen?

    MC: no, Rigo said we can we keep working on it

    AB: would like to hear Mike's perspective on this

    MS: we can keep working on it and even publish a new WD of the
    Updates spec

    AB: we can indeed then do as proposed

    BS: will still need something in the config file
    ... it is the engine that is requesting something

    MC: the question is whether the update element is specified in the
    P+C spec or a the separate Updates spec
    ... it doesn't really matter where it is specified
    ... thus technically it doesn't matter
    ... P+C doesn't say what to do with the element

    BS: P+C says it has to be there

    AB: I don't think someone is not going to know the Updates spec
    exists

    MS: I agree with Art

    MC: I like this proposal from a separation of concerns perspective
    ... but politically, it is a bit irritating

    BS: there is no one document that captures everything

    <Benoit> looking at it on the side onf the developpers, it makes
    sens to have one single place to view the xml file

    AB: the model, by design, is that P+C defines the core set of
    elements
    ... and anyone else can define additional elements

    <mpriestl> (sorry had to drop off the call)

    BS: but would like some type of umbrella spec that identifies all of
    the parts
    ... I don't object to removing update element
    ... and I'm OK with a Red Block in the LC that warns this element
    may be removed

    AB: it appears we do not have consensus to move the update element
    to the Updates spec

    MC: I agree with Benoit we would need a doc that talks about how the
    specs fit together

    <Benoit> there is a widget engine on one side and the widgets on the
    other, and the IP information we have is applying to one program
    updating itself but here we have one program updating another (much
    like the Firefox program updates it's plugin)

    MC: but I think we should take it out
    ... and do as Mike suggested and continue to work on the Updates
    spec
    ... we could even make the move and publish a new WD of Updates
    within a couple of weeks

    AB: I haven't read the IP, I don't plan to read the IP and I'm not
    sure we should base our decsion on the IP
    ... I propose we move the <update> element to the Updates spec
    ... comments?

    <Benoit> I object

    AB: mainly looking for do you agree or object

    MC: Arve and I agree

    BS: I object

    AB: what is your basis for the objection?

    BS: I want to wait for the PAG to discuss this
    ... I don't think we need to do this now

    MC: it would simplify the P+C spec
    ... and it is a good technical separation
    ... it doesn't really even belong in the P+C spec

    DR: does anyone have a link to Rigo's email?

    AB: we have no consensus
    ... Mike, what do we do
    ... rigo:
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/00
    90.html

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/ 
2009JanMar/0090.html

    MS: we can handle this a couple of ways
    ... Editors can make the decision
    ... Chair can make a decsion
    ... We don't have to make a decision now

    AB: I agree with Marcos
    ... I ask him to go ahead and make those changes

A&E: Planning

    AB: any comments on the A&E publication plans I sent yesterday?

    Arve: I am fine with the plan

    AB: any other comments about the plan?

    [ None ]

A&E: plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues

    AB: last week Arve said he would submit a proposal to address the
    A&E's red block issues. What is the status Arve?

    Arve: I haven't had the time

    AB: how can we help you?

    Arve: the red block issues that are mostly trivial
    ... there is one substantial change
    ... we agreed to move the Window object
    ... [34]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

      [34] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    AB: can we get a proposal for these before the next meeting?

    Arve: when is the next meeting?

    AB: April 9

    Arve: that is a public holiday in NO

    AB: how about April 8?

    Arve: that should be do-able

    AB: is that true for the other Europeans?

    Arve: NO has several days of Easter holiday

    DR: not in the UK

    <drogersuk> Easter Monday is a bank holiday

    AB: I'm trying to determine if we will have critical mass on April 9

    MC: probably I won't be available

    AB: FH won't be available on April 9

    RESOLUTION: we will not have a Voice Conference on April 9

    AB: Arve, what's the plan for these Red Block issues in the A+E
    spec?

    Arve: I will address them ASAP and send my proposal to the mail list
    ... if there is no major pushback, we can determine if the next step
    is a WD or LCWD

    <arve> "the group can determine"

    <arve> I will not object to the group's decision even if I'm not
    present

    AB: any last comments on the A+E spec?

    [ None ]

URI scheme

    AB: Before we get to the status and plans, I want to first
    understand the dependency(s) other specs have on this scheme. What
    is the dependency chain?
    ... more specifically, will P+C, A+E or DigSig have a dependency on
    this scheme?

    <marcos> All specs can make use a of a URI scheme, but they are
    designed in such a way that they don't depend on any

    AB: so P+C, A+E and DigSig can go to Candidate and be implemented
    without this URI scheme being nailed down?

    MC: I would argue yes
    ... but TLR may argue no

    AB: what do other people think?

    [ No comments ]

    AB: what is the status and plan? I believe Robin has agreed to lead
    this work.
    ... Marcos, did you and/or Arve agree to work with him on this?

    MC: yes, I can work with Robin
    ... would be good to have timeless / Josh to help

    AB: last I talked with Josh he had higher priorities

    MC: we could create an absolute minimal scheme ie. just the path and
    scheme
    ... but that will receive negative feedback to
    ... no matter what we do we will run into other people's agenda
    ... expect a defacto standard here
    ... but maybe Robin can come up with a proposal everyone can agree
    with

AOB

    AB: I don't have anything; do others?

    BS: what about the next meeting?

    <scribe> ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to
    the mail list [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Send London June f2f meeting wiki
    page to the mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].

    AB: anything else?

    MC: I18N model - I created a rather large doc about how to localize
    a widgets
    ... need to get consensus soon
    ... it was a lot more complicated then I had originally imagined
    ... I expect to send the proposal to the group within a few days

    AB: is this going to be a separate spec?

    MC: no; my doc includes different proposals
    ... want people to pick from the various solutions

    AB: this sounds great
    ... looking forward to reading this
    ... so early next week?

    MC: yes

    AB: anything else?
    ... Meeting Adjourned; next Voice Conf will be April 16

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps
    [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the
    mail list [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re
    the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring issue
    [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the
    Reqs doc [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:41:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT