See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 June 2011
<fjh> ScribeNick: Ed_Simon
Next call is June 14, not June 21.
<fjh> Widget Signature Last Call, anticipated publication 7 June, please review
<fjh> Approve minutes, 24 May 2011
Proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 24 May are approved.
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 24 May are approved.
<fjh> Agenda addition - feedback on 2.0 and Cynthia's draft
<fjh> C14N2 editorial updates ( ACTION-794, ACTION-799 and ACTION-800 )
Pratik did editorial updates.
<fjh> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0002.html for details
Pratik clarified whitespace issue.
<fjh> pdatta checked, whitespace defined in XML 1.0 and 1.1 the same way
scribe: pdatta; prefix mapping, added new section on prefix writing,
and those were the main issues.
<Cynthia> changes are acceptable
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Changes to resolve LC-2484 and LC-2486 are acceptable (whitespace and prefix rewriting changes)
RESOLUTION: Changes to resolve LC-2484 and LC-2486 are acceptable (whitespace and prefix rewriting changes)
fjh: Received last call comments from Paul Grosso
fjh: short list of comments including concern about context, use of xml: lang in text, clarification needed.
Pratik has not had a chance to go through Pauls' comments.
<fjh> ACTION: pdatta to review comments from XML Core WG and formulate response, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0005.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-802 - Review comments from XML Core WG and formulate response, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0005.html [on Pratik Datta - due 2011-06-14].
tlr: Ignore CSS warnings
<fjh> XML Signature Streaming Profile of XPath 1.0
<fjh> XML Signature 2.0
fjh: Pratik, where are you with your implementation?
... What can we do to move other implementations forward?
Pratik: We are building both C14N 2.0 and XML Signature 2.0.
No one else seems to be implementing the specs which puts interoperability testing in question.
<fjh> Minimum CR period of 1 June is ended.
<fjh> ACTION-779: Gerald Edgar to Review test cases for 1.1 and summarize which are missing
<trackbot> ACTION-779 Review test cases for 1.1 and summarize which are missing notes added
Gerald: Sent out review of test cases and coverage today; would like people to review.
<fjh> Cynthia, suite b material for review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0006.html
Cynthia: Wrote summary of what Suite B is and why we are doing this. Created a matrix form
... with things that should be in there. Would like review of wording before the tables.
<fjh> pointer to draft from Cynthia http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/att-0006/Suite_B_Interoperability_06.08.11_a.pdf
Cynthia: Suite B people have reviewed the text and found it confusing so we need to tweak it.
... Also looking AES Key Wrap.
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to propose language re xmlsec required for suite b description by Cynthia [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-803 - Propose language re xmlsec required for suite b description by Cynthia [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2011-06-14].
Cynthia: Not sure that it (AES Key Wrap) should be in there because not sure it is a required field.
Best to have more reviewers.
fjh: Helpful to list the relevant algorithms even if not ECC specific, so it is clear what is ECC and what is not.
... Better to have a little too much info than not enough.
Cynthia: Once I have everyone's feedback, wiki will be edited.
<fjh> documents for 1.1 interop :
<fjh> XML Signature 1.1
<fjh> XML Encryption 1.1
<fjh> XML Signature Properties
<fjh> XML Security Generic Hybrid Ciphers
tlr: Can we use the results from Web Applications testing of Signature Properties, and test suite and test result? Yes.
... Then we need to show interoperable implementations of the spec based on the test suite, then we can go to Proposed Rec.
<fjh> XMLSec WG should review WebApps Signature Properties test suite, interop and remove at risk material from Signature Properties as necessary
fjh: Not sure how we will progress Generic Hybrid Ciphers because no public implementation that we can reference.
Brian: Will be talking to Magnus about possibilities.
... We still need a second implementation
... If no second implementation, what happens to the spec
... (will sit in CR until two implementations are ready).
fjh: Unless we have implementations of Hybrid Ciphers we should not spend time on it.
tlr: If not expecting two implementations, Hybrid Ciphers could be published as Note.
Brian: Magnus would be implementing it and Microsoft could participate in XML Signature 1.1. interop testing.
Pratik will have an implementation.
<fjh> Who apart from Microsoft and Oracle is able to participate in further 1.1 interop?
<fjh> If anyone is planning on implementing Generic Hybrid Ciphers please indicate on the list
<fjh> ScribeNick: Cynthia
fjh: Try to set up something regarding interop testing to move forward, need to figure out scheduling
... Try to set up a call or do it via email, contact Magnus to see when he is available
pdatta: We did not do encryption last time, need to pick that up
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to send email to set up offline interop discussion with Microsoft, Oracle, Signature 1.1, Encryption 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-804 - Send email to set up offline interop discussion with Microsoft, Oracle, Signature 1.1, Encryption 1.1 [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2011-06-14].
fjh: Need to look at the interop page to see what needs to be done
Interop Page: http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Interop
<fjh> One priority is XML Encryption 1.1 interop, the other is filling the gaps in Signature 1.1 interop
fjh: Is there any sense of finality with Notes?
<fjh> XML Security 1.1 Requirements and Design Considerations
<fjh> XML Security Algorithm Cross-Reference
<fjh> XML Security RELAX NG Schemas
<fjh> XML Security 2.0 Requirements and Design Considerations
<fjh> XML Signature Best Practices
tlr: Note is non-normative, can be updated by WG decision, could be published by working draft if changes are to be made
<fjh> suggestion that we complete these as W3C Notes once we go to REC with XML SIgnature 1.1 and XML Encryption 1.1
<fjh> understanding is these are complete and in good shape, please indicate if you are aware of any issues
<trackbot> ACTION-238 -- Thomas Roessler to update the proposal associated with ACTION-222 and send to list. -- due 2011-06-30 -- OPEN
tlr: leave this open for now
<trackbot> ACTION-705 -- Juan Carlos Cruellas to confirm suitability of exclusive -- due 2010-11-09 -- OPEN
<fjh> propose to close, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Jun/0000.html
<trackbot> ACTION-779 -- Gerald Edgar to review test cases for 1.1 and summarize which are missing -- due 2011-03-08 -- OPEN
Gerald-E: waiting for comments, will change as necessary
I will try to review it
<fjh> I will also look at it
<trackbot> ACTION-791 -- Thomas Roessler to request SAAG review of XML Sec 2.0 once spec is in LC -- due 2011-04-19 -- OPEN
tlr: will do that right now, what is the deadline for them
fjh: deadline - 2 weeks to a month?
tlr: 4 weeks is fine
<trackbot> ACTION-796 -- Thomas Roessler to review xml sec charter extension, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2011Apr/0001.html, with possibility of 9 months vs 1 year -- due 2011-04-26 -- OPEN
fjh: requesting extension between 9 months to a year
I believe we need a year extension given the need for v2.0 implementations
<trackbot> ISSUE-132 -- Keep 2.0 xenc transform feature in sync with signature 2.0 -- open
tlr: No news in particular (regarding the PAG status)
... this is an ancient issue, what are the changes mean in general
fjh: Does anyone want to take a look at this?
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to review ISSUE-132 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-805 - Review ISSUE-132 [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2011-06-14].
pdatta: want to take a look at it
<fjh> ACTION: pdatta to review ISSUE-132, whether we need XML Encryption update to reflect changes in Signature 2.0 transform model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-806 - Review ISSUE-132, whether we need XML Encryption update to reflect changes in Signature 2.0 transform model [on Pratik Datta - due 2011-06-14].
<tlr> action-791 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-791 Request SAAG review of XML Sec 2.0 once spec is in LC closed
<fjh> Note, teleconference schedule update, our next call will be next week 14 June. There will be no call on 21 June.