[widgets] Minutes from 8 January 2009 Voice Conference

The minutes from the January 8 Widgets voice conference are available  
at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 15 January 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered

-Regards, Art Barstow


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

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

08 Jan 2009


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-wam-irc


           Art, Frederick, Mark, Claudio, Jere, Marcos, Doug, Mike, Josh





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda review and tweak
          2. [6]Annoucements
          3. [7]R44. Support for Multiple Message Digest Algorithms
          4. [8]R45. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms
          5. [9]R46 and R49
          6. [10]New Req proposal (5): add role of signer
          7. [11]Section 5. definitions
          8. [12]Section 9 and X509
          9. [13]P&C Last Call WD
         10. [14]AOB
      * [15]Summary of Action Items

    Date: 8 January 2009

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

Agenda review and tweak

    AB: agenda
    ... any change requests?

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 



    AB: I don't have any widget-specific annoucments

    FH: XML Sec WG is having a f2f meeting next week
    ... we will look at sig properties
    ... if anyone wants to attend, please let me know
    ... Also, if we have any comments to discuss, I can make that happen
    ... I may be able to rearrange things if needed


      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Jan/ 

    AB: please notify FH if you want to take advantage of it

    MC: I may try to join

    AB: any other annoucements?


R44. Support for Multiple Message Digest Algorithms

    <fjh> +

    AB: FH thinks the requirement is unclear

    <arve> ArtB: as indicated, I'll be regretting

    FH: need to clarify the model
    ... this will effect validation

    MP: there may be a misunderstanding in what we are trying to achieve
    ... expect the sig to always be in the package

    <fjh> concerned how core validation can be meaningful if signature
    not with references, especially if using relative uris

    MP: [Mark describes some use cases that motiviated his comments]

    <fjh> this sounds like an implemention optimization, not sure it
    belongs in spec

    MP: I don't want to add complexity

    FH: sounds like some pre-caching
    ... I think we just want to say core validation is done via XML Sig

    MP: don't want the spec to preclude my use case
    ... agree we don't want to specify a separate delivery mechanism
    ... want to make sure the two major steps can be done in either

    AB: let's take the tech discussion to the public list

    MP: I will respond to the list with more details of the use case

R45. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms

    AB: just need some clarification to SHA1 and SHA256

    FH: yes, we need some clarification here
    ... a separate issue is XML Sig 1.1

    AB: what is the status and roadmap for 1.1?

    FH: we are very close to FPWD for 1.1
    ... will be a topic for next week's f2f meeting
    ... I don't expect any major issues
    ... I think we can align the two specs
    ... I think best case in about 3-4 months to start the Candidate
    ... But we need to discuss this next week

    AB: so you expect 1.1 REC in 2009?

    FH: yes; definitely

    AB: any concerns about 1.1?

    MP: are there any other major diffs for 1.1 (besides algorithms)?

    <fjh> [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/roadmap/roadmap.html

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/roadmap/roadmap.html

    FH: besides algorithms, SHA-256 migration is in scope
    ... we have some minor errata
    ... all major changes will be deferred to v2.0

    AB: propose we resolve XML Sign 1.1 will be the basis for our spec
    ... any objections to that proposal?

    MP: is it possible for this to hold up our spec?

    AB: based on what FH said, I think this won't be an issue

    DS: cannot go to REC if a normative reference is not a REC
    ... need a month for PR, month for CR, month for LC
    ... Given this, probably will take 4-5 months to get XML Sig to REC,
    perhaps a bit longer

    FH: the two specs could progress together

    AB: given where we are today, e.g. no tests, not in LC yet, I don't
    think we will be blocked by XML Sig 1.1
    ... Mark do you still have some concerns?

    MP: I don't have any concerns about using 1.1

    AB: any objections to using XML Sig 1.1?


    RESOLUTION: we resolve XML Sign 1.1 will be the basis for our spec

R46 and R49

    AB: the email on these shows there is agreement by Mark on FH's
    ... is that true?

    FH: yes

    MP: yes

    AB: please implement the proposed changes

New Req proposal (5): add role of signer

    AB: MP raised some questions about the use cases
    ... it wasn't clear to me how it would satisfied

    FH: the role could be used to clarify the distributor
    ... could use a signature property
    ... I don't think the author element is relevant here

    MP: if the roles are different it implies different processing

    <fjh> MP: different purposes for signing , signer vouching for
    trust, or update signature

    <fjh> MP: role of signature, not role of signer

    MP: think something like this is needed but is related to the 2nd
    requirement proposed

    <fjh> MP: usage might be better name

    FH: role and usage have been dealt with elsewhere
    ... usage is different than policy

    <fjh> define property in sig properties, values in widgets signature

    <fjh> MPupdate signature indicates update of package

    [Some discussions about the update mechanisms:
    [19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ]

      [19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/

    <fjh> requirment 5 should be usage instead of role

    AB: is there consensus to add req 5?

    MC: no, I need to consider this more

    FH: I tihink we need it

    MC: I want some time to think about this

    AB: how much time do you need Marcos?

    MC: one week

    MP: I will send an email by Monday

    AB: what about req 6?

    <fjh> suggest profile property with uri for signature spec

    MC: I'm OK with that proposal

    FH: req #8 provides a motivation about the Expires property

    MP: agree Expires property makes sense

    <fjh> issue of granularity of time stamps?

    MP: a concern I had is the text implies a short expiration period
    ... but I agree with the overall intent

    FH: I think we need to continue discussion on req #8
    ... could use something from Schema

    <fjh> suggest we use xsd:dateTime but need clarification of
    processing rules around comparisons

    <timeless> hello?

    AB: any last comments about FH's original email?


Section 5. definitions

    AB: who can help?

    FH: I can help but it isn't a high priority

Section 9 and X509

    FH: do we really need to define something here?

    AB: agree we should reference existing work if possible

    <fjh> MP: concern about interoperability related to optional

    MP: concerened about addressing some interop issues we've had in the
    mobile industry

    <fjh> MP: both for OCSP and CRLs

    MP: we could ref some existing specs
    ... not sure they meet all of our reqs
    ... Agree there is an open question on how much X509 processing we
    need to specify.

    AB: Mark, you will provide input on OCSP and CRLs


      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 


      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    AB: and contributors for 6.1 and 8?

    FH: I sent a proposal for 6.1 to the list earlier today
    ... I made a proposal for section 8 too

    <timeless> ack

    JS: there is a protocol for helping sort out a chain if something is
    ... Gecko has some new suport for this

P&C Last Call WD

    AB: which WG do we want to request feedback?

    MC: I18N WG
    ... WAI P&F
    ... MWBP

    <timeless> i think this is probably a related url,

      [22] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/ 

    FH: XML Sec
    ... the P&C should just point at the Widgets DigSig spec

    MP: I think the P&C spec needs to address how to address handling
    more than one sig

    <fjh> should point to Widgets DigSIg spec since it handles
    properties etc


    AB: next call is Jan 15
    ... FH regrets already sent
    ... quick poll on Paris f2f attendance
    ... any definites?

    MP: yes

    AB: yes

    CV: most likely

    MC: I don't know

    <JereK> doubtful as of now

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 17:53:32 UTC