W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Results of 20000509 Call on xmldsig

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:58:47 +0200
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000516115847.01f80e48@localhost>
To: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Cc: "Donald Eastlake" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, <lde008@dma.isg.mot.com>
FYI: The minutes of a meeting regarding coordinating the advancement XML
Signatures into and out of Candidate REC and Proposed Standard.

 __
 
 http://www.w3.org/2000/05/00509-signature-coord-tele.html
 
         [1]IETF [2]W3C   [3]XML Signature IETF/W3C Coordination Call

      [1] http://www.ietf.org/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/
      [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/Overview.html

  2000-May-09
  Chair: Joseph Reagle
  Notes: Joseph Reagle [[4]ascii]

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/05/00509-signature-coord-tele.html,text

Participants

     * Tim Berners-Lee, W3C
     * Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
     * Joseph Reagle, W3C
     * Jeffrey Schiller, MIT
     * Danny Weitzner, W3C

  Publishing

     * Requirements Document: in RFC editors queue awaiting resolution of
       joint copyright statement: "Copyright 2000 IETF & W3C (MIT, INRIA,
       Keio)".
          + Schiller: has no problem with the substantive, just a matter
            of making it happen, will speak with Bradner.
     * Patent Issues: Chairs have been encouraging folks to [5]make
       disclosures, no substantive discussion or problems so far.
     * The W3C version includes links to a few documents including the
       complete schema and DTD (which are normatively represented in the
       body of the text), a couple examples, and a non-normative GIF of
       an RDF data model of the syntax.
          + Schiller: as long as all the normative bits are in the text
            of document, this shouldn't be a problem.
          + Eastlake: believe the consensus of the WG is to have both
            Schema and DTD although Schema is normative in case of
            conflict so both should be in the RFC.
     * Reagle: synchronizing the IETF/RFC# with a dated W3C Technical
       Report is tricky. Note it took ~6 months from being published as
       an IETF-draft to getting an RFC number, which then seems to
       require that a new W3C TR (Technical Report). be published
       pointing out that the proper IETF version is the RFCXXXX.
          + Eastlake/Schiller: if each version is complete, need they
            even reference each other?
          + Reagle: I think it's a very useful feature.
          + Schiller: The trick is how to make sure that someone that
            thinks they have the latest document, really has the latest
            document.
          + Reagle: My proposal was to update the W3C TR so it points to
            RFCXXXX, which should include a link saying the latest
            version of the W3C document is:
            [6]http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-requirements. Call agreed to
            proposal.

      [5] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Disclosures.html
      [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-requirements

    Timing

     * How do we enter Candidate REC/Proposed Draft, are they necessarily
       bound?
          + Schiller needs to create and send a ballet to the IESG one
            week prior to May 18th, next date is in two weeks.
          + Target date for Proposed/Candidate: June 15th
               o Schiller needs to send ballet by June 8th.
          + Eastlake/Reagle: need to get Jeff a copy by June 2nd for
            review.
               o As that draft shouldn't differ too much from the version
                 being published April 10th, Eastlake/Reagle will send
                 that version to Jeff, and then publish the June 2nd
                 version then point out the (if any) substantive changes
                 in the June version by the 2nd.
               o If miss this deadline, push dates ahead two weeks.
          + Schiller/IESG needs to say yes; Tim needs to say yes; then
            Chairs send publication request to make the document
            Propose/Candidate.
          + Canonical XML
               o Continue running it through the W3C TR process till
                 Candidate REC, then generate an informational RFC.
     * How do we exit and where do we go from there?
          + Reagle: As stated in [7]present charter the active period
            should end in summer, then WG cycles to low maintenance
            phase. In the W3C that means we get to Candidate REC in June,
            give that phase 1-2 months optimistically to prepare our
            implementation report, then advance to Proposed REC and REC
            by end of summer. However, we can't exit Proposed Standard ->
            Draft Standard until 6 months from June which is December?
            Where do we wait?
          + Berners-Lee: can we arrange the AC and IESG to do that review
            at the same time?
          + Schiller: advance it along Candidate REC to Proposed as
            natural.
          + Agreed: Don't go to REC until we have AC and Director
            approval and have IESG approval to send it to Draft Standard.
            Director will look at comments from the WG, AC, public and
            liaise with the IESG in making determination of REC.

      [7] http://www.w3.org/Signature/charter-20000105.html




_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 05:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT