W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > September 2012

Draft minutes, 9/4 call

From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:53:19 -0400
Message-ID: <50466A3F.3070000@w3.org>
To: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Draft minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html

We're back to standard time and code (Monday 1900 UTC, 27978# (CRYPT))
next week.

--Wendy

                               - DRAFT -

             Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference

04 Sep 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Sep/0018.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-irc

Attendees

   Present
          +33.6.13.23.aaaa, +1.650.214.aabb, virginie,
          +1.773.939.aacc, WSeltzer, ddahl, +1.408.540.aadd,
          markw, wtc, rsleevi, vgb, JimD, +1.512.257.aaee, karen,
          +1.512.257.aaff, asad, +1.510.387.aagg, Wendy, cjkula,
          +1.408.656.aahh, mitchz, +1.415.294.aaii, arunranga,
          Anthony_Nadalin, Mike_Jones

   Regrets

   Chair
          virginie

   Scribe
          karen

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]1- Welcome
         2. [6]2- Draft API review
         3. [7]3- Action status
         4. [8]issue 16 and 20
         5. [9]review actions
         6. [10]open actions
         7. [11]4- Group Life
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 04 September 2012

   <virginie> any volunteer for scribing ?

Welcome

   <wseltzer> scribenick: karen_

   <wseltzer> scribe: karen

   <virginie> [13]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/27-crypto-minutes.html

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/27-crypto-minutes.html

   Virginie: approve 8/27 minutes
   ... objective: review draft API
   ... review actions, not issues

   agenda approved

Draft API review

   <virginie>
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0420.html

     [14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0420.html

   Ryan: responded most of the feedbacks

   <virginie> draft is available
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/WebCryptoAPI/

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/WebCryptoAPI/

   <wseltzer> [rsleevi reviews some of the changes listed in
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0420.html ]

     [16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0420.html

   <markw> +1

   Virginie: Thank you Ryan!

   <arunranga> Solid +1

   +1

   <JimD> +1

   <asad> +1

   Virginie: anyone frustrated?

   <vgb> +1

   <rsleevi>
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0400.html

     [17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0400.html

   <mitchz> +

   Mark: a used case that I provided last week is not included.
   Hope to be included.

   <mitchz> +1

   Ryan: sent feedback in email.

   <rsleevi> Sorry, feedback was
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0399.html

     [18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0399.html

   Ryan: Didn't have chance to agree on text

   <wseltzer> virginie: any objection to including Netflix use
   case?

   <mitchz> +1

   <wseltzer> (+1 = no objection)

   <virginie> +1

   <wseltzer> (-1 if objection)

   <JimD> +1

   <vgb> +1

   <asad> +1

   virginie: no objection. can proceed to include netflix use
   case.

   <wtc> I have a question about the purpose of use cases in the
   API draft, which is why I couldn't vote,

   Mark: can work on it today. can work with Ryan.

   wtc: purpose of the use case is not clear to me

   <mitchz> didn't hear the question

   <mitchz> Wan-Teh, your phone is breaking up a bit

   <vgb> W3C text on what FPWD means:
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#first-wd

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#first-wd

   <wseltzer> wtc: proposes face-to-face discussion among rsleevi,
   wtc, Netflix

   wtc: communications through email are inefficient. Suggest F2F
   meeting to clearify.
   ... does not need to wait for the w3c meeting

   Virginie: we can have conference call dedicated to certain
   subject

   <JimD> an action committee, of sorts... a conference call
   perhaps outside normal hours?

   Virginie: as long as you report to the group, no problem for
   f2f meeting

   Ryan: should we mention names?

   Virginie: we should typically not mention company names.

   Ryan: once in the use cases, the API needs to support it.

   <JimD> initial inclusion of use cases does not mean they'll be
   in the final version

   Ryan: we have open issues for API to workout.

   <JimD> likewise, there may be other use cases that may be added
   later

   Wendy: we are guided by the charter. It is good to have use
   cases even if the current API does not support yet. We are free
   to make further choices

   Mark: agree with Virginie and Wendy.
   ... use cases intending for API to support. If or not API
   supporting depends on what we work out.

   asad: thank editors
   ... comment on 5.4

   <JimD> asad, well said

   asad: even current API does not support discover of keys, hope
   the API still intend to do

   Ryan: there are a few editorial changes to be made

   Wendy: public review process include making sure public url
   work out

   mitch: where we go for example code?
   ... do we decide spin out another document?

   Virginie: that's an action allocate to Asad

   <arunranga> FWIW a FPWD should have some sample code.

   asad: for sample code, Ryan has pointed out the sample code
   should be after api stablized

   virginie: can you live with without a sample code?

   mitch: may be.

   Ryan: similar as use cases, we may start wiki for sample code
   to address use cases
   ... I don't know we are at the point to put it in the api doc

   <ddahl> rsleevi: we can also write the code in the github and
   embed it into the wiki so it looks nice

   virginie: arun, do you want to comment?

   <rsleevi> Note: I was not advocating for FPWD that we do
   samples

   arun: it is useful to have some illustrative code
   ... generally it is a good idea to have a sample code in the
   draft

   virginie: if include sample code, we can delay for a week or
   sample code will come later
   ... any opinion?
   ... anyone can write sample code in one week?

   David: I can do it.

   virginie: it is more reasonable to delay one week to add sample
   code

   <JimD> +1

   +

   <mitchz> +1

   +1

   <virginie> +1

   <asad> +1

   <selfissued> +1

   <arunranga> +1

   <ddahl> +1

   <wseltzer> Proposal: FPWD next week, not this

   <vgb> +1

   virginie: okay, we postpone one week

   <scribe> ACTION: David writes sample code [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Sorry, ambiguous username (more than one match) -
   David

   <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family
   name or username (eg. ddahl3, dmcgrew, drogers2, dhooley)

   <wseltzer> ACTION: ddahl3 to write some sample code [recorded
   in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Write some sample code [on David
   Dahl - due 2012-09-11].

   virginie: we are done with the draft api

3- Action status – 5’

issue 16 and 20

   <virginie>
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0402.html

     [22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0402.html

   <wseltzer> ISSUE-16

   <wseltzer> ISSUE-16?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Definition for Key Expiration -- raised

   <trackbot> [23]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/16

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/16

   Ryan: propose to remove it and to have applications to handle
   it.

   <vgb> +1

   <wseltzer> Proposal: close ISSUE 16

   <rsleevi> +1

   <wtc> +1 on removing startDate/endDate

   virginie: objection to close it?

   <ddahl> +1

   <JimD> +1

   <asad> +1

   +1

   <cjkula> +1

   <virginie> +1

   <mitchz> +1

   <wseltzer> +1

   <wseltzer> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-16

   resolution: close issue 16

   <wseltzer> ISSUE-20?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- What are the requirements and the
   possible technical solution(s) to control the storage of key
   and associated attributes -- raised

   <trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/20

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/20

   <rsleevi>
   [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Au
   g/0401.html - proposed text

     [25]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0401.html

   <rsleevi> (or lack of text)

   <wseltzer> Proposal: Close ISSUE-20

   <rsleevi> +1

   <wtc> +1. The spec shuld not overspecify how implementations
   store key attributes.

   <ddahl> +1

   <vgb> +1

   <JimD> +1

   <cjkula> +1

   <mitchz> +1

   <wseltzer> +1

   resolved: close issue 20

review actions

   <virginie>
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/pendingrevie
   w

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/pendingreview

   virginie: action 16 - delay after first public working draft

   <wseltzer> trackbot, close ISSUE-20

   <trackbot> ISSUE-20 What are the requirements and the possible
   technical solution(s) to control the storage of key and
   associated attributes closed

   <wseltzer> trackbot, close ISSUE-16

   <trackbot> ISSUE-16 Definition for Key Expiration closed

   virginie: action 22 - key import/export - need more discussions

   <wseltzer> trackbot, close ACTION-22

   <trackbot> ACTION-22 And cjkula to describe key import/export
   functionality closed

   virginie: action 32 - issue 14 to be discussed

open actions

   <virginie>
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/open

     [27] http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/open

   UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: please indicate on the mailing list if you
   think the action should be closed

4- Group Life – 15’

   UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: topic: group life

   <virginie>
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Gathering_public_comm
   ent_for_FPWD

     [28]
http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Gathering_public_comment_for_FPWD

   virginie: wiki - any member can edit
   ... need to decide where to send the public draft
   ... change the use of conf call.
   ... comments from members: too much emails to go through. May
   have 40 min conf call to discuss specific topics

   ryan: support real time communication
   ... concern is - participant may not fully express their
   concern due to missing calls or other reasons
   ... if we do this, we need solid scribers

   virginie: we need material to discuss before the conf call
   ... suggest to try

   wendy: rrsagent, pointer? gives timestamped minute

   virginie: next conf call talk about first public draft

   <virginie> thanks karen for scribing

   <wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: David writes sample code [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: ddahl3 to write some sample code [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version
    1.136 ([32]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/09/04 20:49:38 $

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:53:23 GMT