XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group Teleconference (original) (raw)

<trackbot-ng> Date: 15 January 2008

<tlr> trackbot-ng, start meeting

<trackbot-ng> Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot-ng> Date: 15 January 2008

<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2008Jan/0030.html

<FrederickHirsch> Chair: Frederick Hirsch

<klanz2> Unfortunately I cannot dial in, but I'll try to pay some attention to IRC, in case I can be of help please ping me directly ...

<fjh> Scribe: Sean Mullan

<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2008Jan/0030.html

<fjh> Konrad, are you able to scribe next week?

Administrivia

<tlr> yes, I'm happy to chair next week if needed

fjh: may not be able to chair next week

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-xmlsec-minutes.html

fjh: any concerns with minutes or making them public?

RESOLUTION: minutes approved and make them public

C14N11 Implementation report and Test Case document

fjh: need to get info on implementations
... ... in next two weeks

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/c14n11/report.html

fjh: this week if possible

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to note that I'd also like to know whether people are ok with publishing the report

<klanz2> Re: Konrad, are you able to scribe next week? No, I'm sorry I am also not sure if I can attend next weeks call, it is very likely that I am on vacation on that day ...

<fjh> Oracle and Sun are able to provide implementation information

tlr: does anyone object to making the impl. report public?

<tlr>ACTION: sean to confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-134 - Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [on Sean Mullan - due 2008-01-22].

<tlr>ACTION: klanz to confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-135 - Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [on Konrad Lanz - due 2008-01-22].

<tlr>ACTION: jcc to confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-136 - Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2008-01-22].

<tlr>ACTION: pdatta to confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-137 - Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public [on Pratik Datta - due 2008-01-22].

<tlr> Bruce has confirmed already

sean's updates included removing dname tests, renaming xpointer tests, typos

also, wrapping was fixed in signature output

fjh: do we want to keep defcan-legacy-1?

<klanz2> RE: confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public

<klanz2> I'm sitting next to JC could you post the link we will have a quick look...

hal: will scribe next week

fjh: xml signature implementation report will be similar to c14n
... which tests do we include?
... should we include defCan tests?
... also, what about diffRFCs?

<scribe>ACTION: Frederick to send inventory for signature implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-138 - Send inventory for signature implementation report [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2008-01-22].

fjh: how do we verify if tests passed or failed?

<fjh> 1st , digests agree. transform chain

<fjh> Reference processing

<fjh> implementations had different keys, hence signature values won't match

<fjh> however should verify signatures for correctness.

<fjh> did this in interop before checking into cvs

<tlr_> To measure whether transform chains are ok, enough to compare digest values.

<tlr_> Signature values will be different.

<tlr_> Also, I believe people cross-validated signatures, and succeeded.

<tlr_> DSA has a random value in it.

<fjh> sean same key but signature values will differ because of algorithm

<tlr_> sean: can't just look at the signature even though people have different keys.

<tlr_> ah, yes.

fjh: we need to compare digest values to verify if test passed or not

XML Signature Draft

fjh: took a pass at updating acknowledgements

fjh: ... let me know if anyone missed

Chartering

fjh: thomas made an edit since last meeting

<fjh> Further development of XML Encryption, added algorithms:

<fjh> "Develop an update to the XML Encryption specification to ensure

<fjh> consistency with possible changes to the XML Signature specification,

<fjh> and to accommodate additional cryptographic algorithms as determined

<fjh> necessary"

<EdS> I looked at the potential charter and am happy with it.

fjh: any concerns?
... question offline about maintenance

<tlr_> only the maintenance section, indeed!

fjh: does it apply to everything or only maintenance?

hal: when planning to submit charter?

tlr: up to WG to decide

fjh: have we given others (externally) enough time to look at it?

tlr: think we have done enough

hal: how long does it take to start up new WG?

tlr: at least 2 months

hal: no delay after director's approval?

fjh: maybe we should agree to approve charter at next weeks call?

<tlr_> +1 to Hal

hal: get comments in now if you have them

fjh: if no concerns raised, plan on approving next week

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to get back to the acknowledgements briefly

tlr: looks like some of the names from the first revision were removed
... would rather avoid that
... add new section for 2nd edition and keep previous names

<tlr_>ACTION: thomas to fix acknowledgements section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-139 - Fix acknowledgements section [on Thomas Roessler - due 2008-01-22].

Best Practices

Action item review

<tlr> ACTION-112?

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-112 -- Thomas Roessler to prepare interop report template -- due 2007-11-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Group/track/actions/112

<tlr> ACTION-112 closed

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-112

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-112 Prepare interop report template closed

ACTION-115 still open, JCC working on it

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-115

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-115 Review EXI with respect to correct XML Security usage closed

<tlr> trackbot-ng, reopen ACTION-115

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-115 Review EXI with respect to correct XML Security usage re-opened

<tlr> sorry

ACTION-128 closed

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-128

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-128 Implement fix to section 3.2.5 in testcase doc closed

ACTION-129 closed

<fjh> ACTION-128 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-commits/2008Jan/0021.html

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-129

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-129 Rename the xpointer tests as per doc closed

<fjh> ACTION-129 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-commits/2008Jan/0025.htm

ACTION-130 closed

<fjh> ACTION-130 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-commits/2008Jan/0021.html

ACTION-131 closed

<fjh> ACTION-131 see seehttp://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/#news

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-130

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-130 Remove unused DName cases from the doc closed

<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-131

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-131 Update xmlsec public web page with pointer to wiki draft charter closed

trackbot-ng, close ACTION-132

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-132 Send message to public-xmlsec-discuss closed

<fjh> ACTION-132 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-discuss/2008Jan/0001.html

trackbot-ng, close ACTION-133

<trackbot-ng> ACTION-133 Respond to Magnus re DerivedKey closed

<fjh> ACTION-133 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-discuss/2008Jan/0000.html