- From: David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:06:11 -0000
- To: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:Art.Barstow@nokia.com] Sent: 20 March 2009 11:27 To: David Rogers Cc: Nick Allott Subject: Re: [widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference Hi David, As the draft minutes indicate, if you want any changes, please send them to public-webapps. -Art On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:23 PM, ext David Rogers wrote: > Hi Art, > > Please can I ask for some corrections to the minutes as follows as I > believe it is important that my points are captured. Apologies for the > micro-editing: > > 1) Please can you change the original text to what I said, just so > it is > absolutely clear (I know you clarified below but I'd like no potential > for error on this one): "...some non-members of W3C have interest..." > > > ORIG: David: the concern is some members have interest along the > ell. > curves > ... but please be advised this could be a complicated area > ... re IPR issues > > .... > > David: the concern is some NON-members have interest > > > 2) "David: you can't just close your eyes and pretend there is no > potential problem" > > ORIG: David: can't pretend there is no problem there > > > 3) "David: you need to think..." > > ORIG: David: need to think what to do if there are patents > > 4) Honestly I think I actually swore to myself at this point, so I > guess > it is best to delete this point instead ;-) > > ORIG: David: how do I do that? > > 5) "...will submit their own comments to the web-apps mailing list as > agreed on an OMTP call last week." > > David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments > > > Thanks! > > > David. > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-webapps-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow > Sent: 19 March 2009 14:21 > To: public-webapps > Subject: [widgets] Minutes from 19 March 2009 Voice Conference > > The minutes from the March 19 Widgets voice conference are available > at the following and copied below: > > <http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html> > > WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send > them to the public-webapps mail list before 26 March 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 > > 19 Mar 2009 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0815.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Art, Frederick, Dan, Andy, Andrew, David, Mike, Thomas, > Bryan, Marcos, Arve, Benoit, Robin > > Regrets > Chair > Art > > Scribe > Art > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]Review and tweak agenda > 2. [6]Announcements > 3. [7]DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be > processed > 4. [8]DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of > requirement R47 (Section 2)? > 5. [9]DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm > requirements in section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and > #5b. > 6. [10]DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path > 7. [11]DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a > new WD? > 8. [12]P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory? > 9. [13]P&C: <option>s on <feature>s > 10. [14]P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next > steps > * [15]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > > > <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB > > <scribe> Scribe: Art > > <Marcos> [IPcaller] jjjis > > <Marcos> argh > > <Marcos> zaki, [IPcaller] is me > > <Marcos> bha > > <Marcos> bah > > Date: 19 March 2009 > > Review and tweak agenda > > AB: draft agenda published on March 18: > [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 15.html > ... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via > [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 31.html ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda; > add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.) > ... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option> > element > ([18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0 > 816.html) that will be added to the agenda. > ... Are there any other change requests? > > [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0815.html > [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0831.html > [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0816.html) > > [None] > > Benoit: what about RSS? > > AB: not today > > David: what about the PAG? > > AB: I have no new info about the PAG > > MS: it is being set up; I am responsible for setting it up; I > have a > draft charter > ... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already > ... hope to get the annoucement out RSN > ... some logistics still be worked out > > David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an > update > > MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at > the REX PAG for an example > > David: we weren't members then > > TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice > > Announcements > > AB: any short announcements? I don't have any. > > David: BONDI review period ends March 23 > > DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be processed > > <drogersuk> [19]http://bondi.omtp.org is the link for BONDI > > [19] http://bondi.omtp.org/ > > <tlr> welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous > incarnations of this wG > > AB: Frederick mentioned his change on March 18 > [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 30.html > ... and added to the latest ED > [21]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we > approve > it as is? > > [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0830.html > [21] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > <fjh> > [22]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures > > [22] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating- > signatures > > MC: I approve > > AB: FH's proposal approved > > DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of requirement R47 > (Section 2)? > > AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to > address them? > > FH: want to add an Note that XML Sec WG has not reached > consensus on > the algorithms for XML Sig 1.1 > ... I don't want to do anything rash here > ... We need to get more feedback > > AB: support your proposal for the note > > <fjh> suggest to add editorial note along these lines: > > David: we are discussing this in OMTP > ... different companies have different opinions > ... Want to know if an IP check has been made? > > <fjh> The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on > required > algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate > ECDSAwighSHA256 > > FH: WGs don't do patent checks > ... but we have talked about it > ... We have conflicting info > ... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer > ... We are certainly seeking feedback > ... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this > > David: the concern is some members have interest along the ell. > curves > ... but please be advised this could be a complicated area > ... re IPR issues > > <fjh> continued editors note text - The XML Security WG is > requesting feedback on their FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1 and > feedback > for algorithms related to Widget Signature is also requested. > > TLR: we know their are Claims of IPR issues > ... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG > ... We do not have knowledge of patents > ... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not > ... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space > with some incomplete data > > David: the concern is some NON-members have interest > > <fjh> thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether > elliptic > curve becomes mandatory or not > > David: just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't > mean non-members don't have concerns > > <fjh> in other words, if sufficient participation in interop > happens > > AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC > > David: can't pretend there is no problem there > > AB: what do you think we should do? > > David: need to think what to do if there are patents > > FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call > > David: want a firm action > > AB: proposal? > > David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this > > TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG > > David: how do I do that? > > TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list > > FH: need an email with specific comments > > David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments > ... these minutes serve as a record > > FH: these minutes won't help that much > ... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best > > TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that > might > be good enough > > <drogersuk> OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been > asked to individually respond > > FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than > minutes > > <tlr> drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's > actually going on > > <drogersuk> exactly :-) > > FH: I propose the text I suggested earlier > > David: I agree > > AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text? > > [ None ] > > DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm requirements in > section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and #5b. > > <fjh> > [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 27.html > > [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0827.html > > AB: Frederick posted a proposal on March 18 > ([24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0 > 827.html) > ... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we > approve > it as is? > > [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0827.html) > > FH: this is pretty straight forward > ... I've done some rewording > > AB: any comments, concerns? > > [ None] > > AB: we can consider this proposal approved > > DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path > > AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative > paths in a signature > [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 24.html > > [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0824.html > > <fjh> > [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/07 > 87.html > > [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0787.html > > AB: Thomas then responded with a question about the "interaction" > between FH's proposal and TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI > dereferencing". > ... let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? > let's > start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? > > <tlr> (postponing that question is what I was about to suggest) > > FH: I added an additional constraint > ... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit > ... Marcos helped me with this > > AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal? > > [ None ] > > AB: consider this approved > ... TLR, what about the interaction issue? > > TLR: agree we should defer to mail list > ... need to decide the URI issue separately > ... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision > > FH: we may need to do some tweaking with the References > ... e.g. flesh out the constraints > > TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model > > DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a new WD? > > <fjh> but this would be very localized within widget signature > spec > > AB: the last time we published the DigSig spec was April 2008. > Since > then, we have made significant changes and improvements. It may > not > be perfect yet but I propose a new WD be published next week. > Comments? > > FH: I think I have addressed all of the comments on the list > ... If I missed anything, please speak up > ... I am ready for a new WD > > MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial > changes > to make > > FH: can you do the publrules? > > MC: yes > > AB: any objections to a new WD? > > FH: what needs to be done? > > AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub > req > > RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will > publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec > > P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory? > > AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed via > [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/06 > 79.html that the config file be mandatory. We had a short > discussion > about this during our March 12 VC but came to no resolution > ([28]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07). Let's > take a few minutes and try to get a resolution on this question. > ... Marcos, where do we stand on this? > > [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0679.html > [28] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/12-wam-minutes.html#item07). > > MC: I'd like to hear others > > RB: my only objection was lack of use cases > ... but Mark indicates it would help with localization > > MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark? > > RB: yes; may need some tweaking > > MC: but that would be significant changes > ... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec > > RB: there were some other issues with the loc model > > MC: think this is over engineering > > RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time > > MC: Mark's proposal says must identify which elements and attrs > can > be localized > ... the model for the UA becomes more complicated > > AB: can we separate these two issues? > > MC: agree it should be mandatory > > RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons > > TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref > are > good reasons > > BS: should it be mandatory? > > RB: I can live with it > > AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory? > > [ None] > > RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory > > BS: need to work on the l10n model > ... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue > > AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop > the > discussion today > > BS: where is the complexity Marcos? > > MC: implementing and authoring > > BS: think it helps with implementing > > P&C: <option>s on <feature>s > > AB: on March 18 Marcos proposed a new <option> element > [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/08 > 16.html This resulted in some interesting discussion including the > issue "Are We Done Yet?" i.e. should we take on new features when > the spec is already in Last Call. Since Marcos and I had a related > discussion in IRC yesterday, it isn't surprising that others were > asking the same question. > ... let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you > proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1? > > [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ > 2009JanMar/0816.html > > MC: we need a way to parameterize features > ... can use a URI scheme > ... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute > pairs > ... Arve gave a better example > > RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential > > AB: so is this a show stopper for v1? > > MC: yes, I think we need it > ... but I don't think it is super complicated > > AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C? > > MC: yes, that basically true > > P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps > > AB: during the Paris f2f meeting we agreed to publish a new LC > WD in > March ([30]http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06). > Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1 is > empty: > [31]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- > widgets-2 > 0081222/ > ... let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be > published?" > > [30] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06). > [31] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD- > widgets-20081222/ > > MC: #1 - the l10n model > ... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions > ... currently this is a show stopper > ... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that > ... #3 <access> - hard and significant > ... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent > > RB: what about URI dereferecing? > > MC: that does not affect the P&C spec > > MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this > > scribe: #6 - step 5 - affected by l10n changes and other things > ... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the > <screenshot> element > > MC: if we add Mark's proposal, just about every part of step #7 > would need to change > ... I removed the nested feature element for v1 > ... #8 - update the RelaxNG schema > ... also need to address one last LC #1 comment > > AB: who can volunteer to help with these? > > RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos? > > MC: I'll take help on any of these > > RB: I'll take feature and screenshot > > AB: thanks Robin > > RB: the schema work can be done in CR > > <Bryan> dropping off now > > <darobin> ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next > week [recorded in > [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01] > > <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - RB > > <darobin> ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for > next week [recorded in > [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02] > > <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin > > <darobin> ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for > next week [recorded in > [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03] > > <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin > > <darobin> RESOLUTION: we are feature complete > > <drogersuk> Let me take this back to OMTP first > > <darobin> AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features? > > <darobin> DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay > > <darobin> AB: okay > > <darobin> AB: Marcos, what's the time frame? > > <darobin> AB: end of the month > > <darobin> AB: thanks a lot > > <darobin> AB: will look into extending this to 90min > > <darobin> ADJOURNED > > <darobin> TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST > confusion > week > > <DKA> Thanks! > > <darobin> AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly > known as Boston time) > > <darobin> a pleasure ArtB :) > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for > next > week [recorded in > [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03] > [NEW] ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next > week > [recorded in > [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01] > [NEW] ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next > week [recorded in > [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02] > > [End of minutes] > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.19/2010 - Release Date: > 03/19/09 07:05:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.19/2010 - Release Date: 03/19/09 19:03:00
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 13:07:00 UTC