W3C

XML Security Working Group Teleconference

08 Jan 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Frederick_Hirsch, Bruce_Rich, Scott_Cantor
Regrets
Chair
Frederick_Hirsch
Scribe
fjh

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 08 January 2013

<scribe> ScribeNick: fjh

Administrative: Agenda review, Announcements

Happy New Year to all.

Minutes Approval

Approve minutes from 4 December 2012

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/att-0018/minutes-2012-12-04.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4 December 2012 are approved.

PR CfC status: XML Encryption 1.1, XML Signature 1.1, XML Signature Properties

Plan publication on 17 January, assuming transition request approved in time.

Call for Consensus completed (CfC) with support for all specs, no objections (see list)

CfC messages:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/0015.html,

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/0013.html ,

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/0014.html

Transition approval step with W3C Team desired to happen soon to enable publication 17 January.

fjh: have started process leading to formal transition approval request including review
... have entered official tracker entries for comments from Juraj so we can officially record and close those
... thomas also noticed an issue with the PAG page and is checking internally to fix that
... once we have these issues fixed I believe we can move forward with the official transition request process
... I have also updated the ReSpec tool to support PR, updating the boilerplate and enabling prEnd etc
... I have also updated the references and requested the git pull, that all should be in the next official ReSpec build (including PR changes)
... this is the message to Juraj listing the tracker entries and requesting confirmation -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0014.html

PR drafts available, XML Encryption 1.1, XML Signature 1.1, XML Signature Properties

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0000.html

removed the at-risk 'Created', 'Expires' and 'ReplayProtect' items from the schema and external example file associated with the XML Signature Properties draft

removed 'OCSPResponse' from schema file associated with XML Signature 1.1 (bug fix)

Note publications: "XML Security Algorithm Cross-Reference", "XML Security 1.1 Requirements and Design Considerations", "XML Security Generic Hybrid Ciphers",

CfC completed and received support on list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/0016.html

Publication drafts prepared but will need update for RELAX NG Schemas Note reference.

Please review status, abstract and introduction for Generic Hybrid Ciphers note - http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/generic-hybrid-ciphers/2013-01-NOTE/Overview.html

Please review updated Best Practices examples (formatting, bug fixes and moving links out of examples) - http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/best-practices/2013-01-Note/Overview.html

Plan publication on 17 January.

Note publication: "Functional Explanation of Changes in XML Encryption 1.1"

Approved with XML Encryption 1.1 PR CfC.

Updated draft, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0001.html

Note publication: "XML Security RELAX NG Schemas"

CfC to publish update, removing 'Created', 'Expires' and 'ReplayProtect' and 'OCSPResponse' from schema files and updating references received support

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0005.html

plan to publish update on 17 January

Algorithm review

Please review and include xmlsec public list in comments: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-additional-xmlsec-uris-05

Roadmap

Updated roadmap for 1.1 : http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Roadmap#The_following_steps_are_planned_for_XML_Security_1.1

decision discussion : update XML Security 2.0 drafts with recent changes to XML Security 1.1 drafts and publish as Notes, completing work?

fjh: we need to update the 2.0 specifications to align with recent changes in 1.1 and then it is likely that we will publish as W3C WG Notes

Signature question on list

fjh: we have responded to this question - I believe they can do what they wish but need to get the References right

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2012Dec/0032.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0015.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2013Jan/0010.html

Action items

ACTION-883?

<trackbot> ACTION-883 -- Frederick Hirsch to review C14N 20 test cases document -- due 2012-04-10 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/883

fjh: plan to defer unless we progress 2.0

close ACTION-883

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-883 Review C14N 20 test cases document.

ACTION-928?

<trackbot> ACTION-928 -- Frederick Hirsch to submit transition request to Proposed Recommendation for XML Encryption 1.1, XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties once Exclusion Period for XML Encryption 1.1 is completed, after 17 December and CfCs approved -- due 2012-12-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/928

<scribe> in progress

Issue review

ISSUE-236?

<trackbot> ISSUE-236 -- Update all references in all Notes and Recs when publishing final REC? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/236

Plan to have references up to date during each publication as part of normal process so no need for explicit issue for this one

close ISSUE-236

<trackbot> Closed ISSUE-236 Update all references in all Notes and Recs when publishing final REC?.

ISSUE-234?

<trackbot> ISSUE-234 -- Reference SP800-56A later in publication process if the latest version is no longer a draft -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/234

ISSUE-122?

<trackbot> ISSUE-122 -- Explain peformance improvements and rationale, relationship to earlier work, document, benchmarks -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/122

we should address this issue as part of deciding how to progress 2.0

Other business

fjh: we will have calls as needed, looks like we may be near completing 1.1 work
... once we have PR publication I believe not much will be required to transition to Recommendation unless there are AC review concerns

brich: thanks for your work on chairing and excellent leadership

scantor: +1

fjh: thanks, and thanks for all your work as well

Adjourn

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009-03-02 03:52:20 $