RE: W3C Web Crypto WG - agenda for our call on monday 4th of march @ 20:00 UTC (today)

Harry,
Note that we already closed the issue-18 and issue-40 during our previous call (issue-18 closure was pending, expecting confirmation that Incomplete Block  would not have any interference and Ryan confirmed there was no interaction). At least this is what I understood from our call, what is reflected in my take away http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Feb/0101.html
Regards,
Virginie


From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org]
Sent: lundi 4 mars 2013 15:06
To: GALINDO Virginie
Cc: 'public-webcrypto@w3.org'; Wendy Seltzer
Subject: Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - agenda for our call on monday 4th of march @ 20:00 UTC (today)

On 03/04/2013 11:36 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
Dear all,

Here is a proposed agenda for our next call monday @20 UTC, feel free to suggest additional items, on the basis of the recent discussions over the mailing list.

Bridge and irc are the usual ones
+1.617.761.6200, 27978# (CRYPT)
IRC irc.w3.org:6665 #crypto

Regards,
Virginie
Gemalto

---------agenda proposal for 04th of March ------


1- Welcome - 5'

- attendees list

- pick a scribe  - (scribe guide https://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Group/Scribe-Instructions.html  or http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html )

- agenda approval

- minutes approval from previous meeting http://www.w3.org/2013/02/04-crypto-minutes.html



2- Web Crypto API - 20'

-          W3C office discussion about IANA registry : call for action

-          We will be discussing proposal from editors to close the following issues

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-37 - Method Naming

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-33 - Clarify text in section 5.1 with respect to how key tainting is handled with multi-origin scenario

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-32 - API should mention the use of secure elements in the context of key security

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-31 - Problems with keys attribute of the Crypto interface

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-29 - Handling of block encryption modes and padding

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-17 - Define the scope and API for custom key attributes

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-9 what will be the mean to integrate in the API the fact that key usage may need user consent ?

 Editor's please add any other proposal you think are mature enough to be voted by the WG.

Note for ISSUE-17 and ISSUE-31, it seems we aren't closing, but just moving the ISSUE to Key Discovery and Naming.

We should revisit these from the last telecon and get consensus on their closure:
CLOSE ISSUE-18: Should it be possible to perform  CryptoOperations as a 'streaming' operation with URI semantics?'
MOVE ISSUE-40:How should we define key discovery,  noting asynchronicity -> i.e. move it to Key Discovery and Naming.

I think it's premature to close ISSUE-37 without consulting JOSE WG officially, and ISSUE-9 without a privacy review. Everything else looks fine. I suggest we start trying to close issues not at random, but first based on consensus and then putting things in secondary scope as officially not addressed.




3- High Level API - 10'

Discussion on the technical merits of the high level API



4- Secondary feature discussion - 5'

Call for comment and contribution to make progressing the certificate management secondary features



5- Group Life - 5'

-          Charter extension

-          Our next F2F exact location :  eBay/PayPal headquarters, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA, USA

Book tickets and suggest topics you would like to discuss at that time.



6- AOB - 1'

News from 3GPP http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Nov/0096.html

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 16:45:48 UTC