See also: IRC log
Next meeting: 14 Aug 2007, Sean to scribe
Info on position papers
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jul/0056.html
<fjh> we all should be writing position papers. deadline is 14 Aug
<fjh> they need to get done this week
Review and approval of last meeting's minutes
http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-xmlsec-minutes
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
ACTION-26: remains open
<klanz2> working on a position paper and should have it done by the deadline
<tlr> there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done once the position papers start coming in
<tlr> early submission is best
<tlr> will discuss more next week
ACTION-50open and should be done by Thomas 14 Aug
ACTION-65open
ACTION-68open, Sean will confirm if it is done
<Sean> we have a test plan
<Sean> need to start implementing the test cases
<Sean> need to assign test cases for implementation
<tlr> I hear Sean saying "we need the test cases as data, as opposed to descriptions".
<tlr> sean, is that accurate?
<Sean> yes
ACTION-70closed, duplicate of 65
ACTION-71open
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0005.html
<scribe> ACTION: juan carlos add test case for RFC 4514 warning [recorded in http://www.w3..org/2007/08/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-75 - Carlos add test case for RFC 4514 warning [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-08-14].
ACTION-72open
ACTION-73open
<klanz2> reviewing old and new
XPointer, still in progress
<klanz2> discovered wide use of XPointer
<tlr:> need to verify we have comment list, parties in action-73 can use it
<tlr> public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org
<fjh>German Sparkasse?
<tlr> we are not deprecating anything that has not been depricated before
... this may be on the edge of our scope for the workshop
tlr: suggest asking for workshop position paper on XPointer and use cases
<tlr> it is important to understand the non web service use cases
<fjh> we will discuss XPointer later in the agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0007.html
<fjh>In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a
<fjh>URI-Reference that does not contain a URI. [URI]
<fjh>, in other words a hash sign ('#') followed by a fragment identifier [URI]."
<fjh> It makes perfect sense RFC 2396 , but not for RFC3986
... we may want to add some wording to clarify
<fjh> the hash is not technically part of the fragment so we will need to mention the hash
... should we just say a hash and a fragment identifier?
<klanz2> +1
<fjh>just say - In this specification, a 'same-document' reference is defined as a hash followed by a fragment identifier.
<klanz2> RFC 2396:
<klanz2> URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]
<klanz2> absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
<klanz2> relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ]
<tlr> defined as a URI refrence that consists of a hash sign ('#') followed by a fragment.
<tlr> URI-reference = URI / relative-ref
<klanz2> same_document_URI = [ "#" fragment ]
<fjh>In this document same-document reference ="#" fragment
<fjh>URI reference that consists of hash sign ('#') followed by fragment identifier or an empty URI
<tlr> fragment identifier -> fragment
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to make changes to document to (a) clarify same-document URI reference, (b) change reference to URI [recorded in http://www.w3..org/2007/08/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-76 - Make changes to document to (a) clarify same-document URI reference, (b) change reference to URI [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2007-08-14].
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2006/12/xml-c14n11
<tlr:> need to define URI
<fjh>to replace @@ in draft
<fjh>use this through interop testing, at C14N11 to PR might change, use this until then
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621/
<klanz2> it may be worth for the interop participants to be aware of comments in appendix A
<klanz2> should include changes in Appendix A in testing (in CR draft)
<fjh> we need to decide what to do about the URI
... any issues using the URI that Thomas has suggested?
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to update algorithm URIs for c14n11 [recorded in http://www.w3..org/2007/08/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-77 - Update algorithm URIs for c14n11 [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2007-08-14].
RESOLUTION: agree to use http://www.w3.org/2006/12/xml-c14n11 for c14n11 through interop (at least)
<fjh>are you saying that there are corrections to the C14N11 CR draft Appendix A that need to be considered?
<klanz2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/0050.html
<fjh>answer is yes, corrections to Appendix A in CR draft are not listed in CR draft but should be considered in our testing
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-xml-c14n11-20070621
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/att-0050/Apendix_20060625.html
klanz2: The correct Appendix A for C14N11 is reflected in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/att-0050/Apendix_20060625.html
<klanz2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007Jun/att-0050/Apendix_20060625.html
<fjh> we want to use the one that has been corrected by Konrad
<tlr> +1
<fjh>Need to have note that we are using update to CR
<fjh>+1
<fjh>Note needs to be in interop test document and interop event notes
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to put note about corrected appendix A all over the place, including editor's note in xmldsig-core editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3..org/2007/08/07-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-78 - Put note about corrected appendix A all over the place, including editor's note in xmldsig-core editor's draft [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2007-08-14].
klanz2: concerned about strong discourage of XPointer, since have been available since 2002 and used
... should warn rather than discourage
<klanz2> Now: Support of the xpointer() scheme [XPointer-xpointer] beyond the minimal usage discussed in this section is discouraged.
<fjh>discouraged for future signature generation (?)
tlr: Those who use full XPointer should lobby for Xpointer advancement
<EdS> +1 to tlr
<klanz2> concerned that we are working on and not a revision
klanz2: addition binds all implementations, and this edition of XML Sig is an edition not revision
<EdS> Sounds like we are stuck; Let's think about this over next week.
<fjh> adjourned