See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 March 2011
<fjh> ScribeNick: cynthia
<fjh> 26 April 2011, 3 May, 10 May Teleconferences cancelled. Please make a note of these dates.
<fjh> Not currently planning to have a F2F, not planning on meeting at TPAC ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2011Mar/0004.html )
fjh: We don't have enough justification to have a F2F, comments?
<fjh> Approve minutes, 8 March 2011
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Mar/0008.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 8 March 2011 are approved
http://www.w3.org/2011/xmlsec-pag/Member/
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2011/xmlsec-pag/Member/
<fjh> PAG signups, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2011Mar/0003.html
fjh: Nothing has been scheduled yet, don't know what is going on yet
I am registered
<fjh> updated the XML Signature 2.0 editors draft to carry forward the base 64 note we made to 1.1.
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Mar/0013.html
fjh: Not sure what the status is
... Not publishing this week (or last week)
... Publication is delayed until Thomas can help out
... Pratik has done some edits, let's discuss examples
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Mar/0014.html (Meiko)
<fjh> revision and id based example, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2011Mar/0022.html
Examples Discussion
fjh: Web Services security discussion
starting point for examples should be the SX Examples document, for v2.0, look at the existing examples for WSS
fjh: Example is not that complicated
The SX example has been finished for a long time, technical content has been forzen for about a year
mjensen: If we take XML v2.0 and allow both at once, what way would they be standardized?
fjh: Used wsu:Id, already used and deployed, for simple cases this should be ok, serves the purpose
... Would probably use the mechanisms that are already used
Pratik: Using xpath may be a good idea
fjh: May be a better approach, but the time to spin up a work group to do that would take a while
mjensen: We need an example with xpath selection, should it include SOAP
fjh: This is an example of how it could be done in the future
... Suggestion, put in the example with xpath, need to fix the digest
... Example shows xpath but does not sign the entire body of the message, why exclude one part
mjensen: To show the exclude feature
Hal: Part of the use case could be one part can be modified and another part cannot be modified, would be a complex example
fjh: Add an example in the doc..
pdatta: Not getting to much support on xpath v2.0
fjh: Need to send out a reminder about xpath v2.0
<fjh> ACTION-732?
<trackbot> ACTION-732 -- Frederick Hirsch to add example to signature 2.0 once Meiko shares text on list, see ACTION-711 -- due 2011-01-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/732
<fjh> ACTION-753?
<trackbot> ACTION-753 -- Meiko Jensen to work on creating 2.0 example for Signature 2.0 -- due 2010-12-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/753
<fjh> ACTION-753 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-753 Work on creating 2.0 example for Signature 2.0 closed
fjh: What is really important for this, integrating the 2, what do we need from the other group?
pdatta: May need more time
fjh: Group may not have the time or resources to do this
... If this is important, could do a last call for comment
<fjh> suggest we not delay and go to Last Call, could have Last Call comment if XPath 2.0 needed
fjh: Any outstanding input for the document?
pdatta: Yes, the example
<fjh> No edits remaining from Pratik apart from XPath 2.0 issue and examples
fjh: Publish a last call
sub-topic: Actions
<fjh> ACTION-476?
<trackbot> ACTION-476 -- Frederick Hirsch to review xml signature 2.0 -- due 2011-01-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/476
<fjh> ACTION-717?
<trackbot> ACTION-717 -- Pratik Datta to document the Performance improvements with 2.0 -- due 2010-11-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/717
<fjh> ACTION-732?
<trackbot> ACTION-732 -- Frederick Hirsch to add example to signature 2.0 once Meiko shares text on list, see ACTION-711 -- due 2011-01-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/732
<fjh> ACTION-753?
<trackbot> ACTION-753 -- Meiko Jensen to work on creating 2.0 example for Signature 2.0 -- due 2010-12-21 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/753
<fjh> ACTION--75?
fjh: I will work on that now, need another example
<fjh> ACTION-775?
<trackbot> ACTION-775 -- Pratik Datta to research XPath 1 vs 2 differences -- due 2011-02-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/775
<fjh> ACTION-775 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-775 Research XPath 1 vs 2 differences closed
<fjh> ACTION-782?
<trackbot> ACTION-782 -- Scott Cantor to update draft with change to 10.7.2 -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/782
fjh: I will take this over and do it
<fjh> reassign to fjh
<fjh> ACTION-784?
<trackbot> ACTION-784 -- Thomas Roessler to prepare 2.0 drafts for publication on 24 March 2011 -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/784
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: publish Last Call of C14N2, Signature 2.0 and XPath profile once example and 10.7.2 changes included
<mjensen> +1
<fjh> implication is not to publish WD first but go now straight to Last Call
RESOLUTION: publish Last Call of C14N2, Signature 2.0 and XPath profile once example and 10.7.2 changes included
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: publish updated WD of XML Security 2.0 Requirements and Design Considerations
RESOLUTION: publish updated WD of XML Security 2.0 Requirements and Design Considerations
<fjh> ACTION-779?
<trackbot> ACTION-779 -- Gerald Edgar to review test cases for 1.1 and summarize which are missing -- due 2011-03-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/779
http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Interop
Gerald: How close should the examples match the interop
fjh: It's not necessary to match
... : Interop should cover the features and highlight the new functionality
... Have you had a chance to look at it?
Gerald: Yes, will send it to the list today
<fjh> ACTION-604?
<trackbot> ACTION-604 -- Hal Lockhart to propose change for best practices for ISSUE-170 -- due 2010-07-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/604
<fjh> ISSUE-170?
<trackbot> ISSUE-170 -- Should we recomend signing namespaces as part of Best Practice 12 (dependency on ACTION-538) -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/170
<fjh> ACTION-604 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-604 Propose change for best practices for ISSUE-170 closed
fjh: Can we close this action, Issue 170 is Best Practices
<fjh> ACTION-608?
<trackbot> ACTION-608 -- Hal Lockhart to initiate feedback response to Magic Signatures -- due 2010-08-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/608
<fjh> ACTION-608 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-608 Initiate feedback response to Magic Signatures closed
<fjh> ACTION-699?
<trackbot> ACTION-699 -- Cynthia Martin to update interop wiki with suite B organization -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/699
Totally forgot about this
I will look at it
<fjh> ACTION-716?
<trackbot> ACTION-716 -- Meiko Jensen to propose text for xpath and best practices -- due 2010-11-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/716
mjensen: What does this action mean?
fjh: Does anything need to be done?
mjensen: will review and put findings on the list
<fjh> ACTION-727?
<trackbot> ACTION-727 -- Magnus Nystrom to share updated PBKDF2 and concatkdf test cases to list -- due 2010-11-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/727
<fjh> ACTION-727 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-727 Share updated PBKDF2 and concatkdf test cases to list closed
<fjh> ACTION-779?
<trackbot> ACTION-779 -- Gerald Edgar to review test cases for 1.1 and summarize which are missing -- due 2011-03-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/779
<fjh> ACTION-781?
<trackbot> ACTION-781 -- Thomas Roessler to check on commit message mechanism for xmlsec -- due 2011-03-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/781
<fjh> ISSUE-219?
<trackbot> ISSUE-219 -- Status of Reference Type attribute in 2.0? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/219
fjh: Did not address this in v2.0.
... Why is this an issue? Does this have something to do with the selection? How you do the selection operation
<fjh> type attribute should not affect selection operation
<fjh> only information for application
fjh: Don't think this is an issue, can close this
<fjh> ISSUE-219 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-219 Status of Reference Type attribute in 2.0? closed
ISSUE-223?
<trackbot> ISSUE-223 -- Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/223
<fjh> ISSUE-223?
<trackbot> ISSUE-223 -- Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/223
fjh: Issue came up perhaps from the simplification
mjensen: Attributes in the namespace
<fjh> about xml:lang, xml:space etc
<mjensen> xml namespace attributes: lang etc
<fjh> ISSUE-223: : about xml:lang, xml:space etc
<trackbot> ISSUE-223 Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement notes added
<fjh> ISSUE-223: respect them by processing before signature processing starts
<trackbot> ISSUE-223 Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement notes added
fjh: Can close this issue
<fjh> ISSUE-223 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-223 Requirement to "respect XML architecture" may lead to issue related to simplification and vs need to implement closed
fjh: Next steps, add example to draft, adjust length in example, perhaps add a second example
... Focusing on interop for v1.1
... Go forward with plan
<fjh> further work would need to be public
<fjh> Meiko to review ACTION-716 and Best Practices and propose any changes/resolution on the list.
<fjh> All to review 2.0 documents in anticipation of publishing Last Call
fjh: Any other actions?