IRC log of xmlsec on 2007-06-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:40:08 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #xmlsec

12:40:08 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-xmlsec-irc

12:40:16 [klanz2]

klanz2 has joined #xmlsec

12:41:05 [klanz2]

Hello, we are starting in 20 mins right ...

12:41:11 [tlr]

yessir

12:42:22 [fjh]

fjh has joined #xmlsec

12:42:54 [rdmiller]

rdmiller has joined #xmlsec

12:44:54 [fjh]

Zakim, this will be XMLSEC

12:44:54 [Zakim]

ok, fjh; I see T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

12:45:17 [fjh]

Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG Conference Call

12:45:26 [fjh]

Chair: Frederick Hirsch

12:45:44 [fjh]

Scribe: Donald Eastlake

12:46:16 [fjh]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0025.html

12:46:32 [fjh]

RRSAgent, make log public

12:49:22 [PHB]

PHB has joined #xmlsec

12:52:08 [grw]

grw has joined #xmlsec

12:52:18 [Zakim]

T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM has now started

12:52:25 [Zakim]

+Frederick_Hirsch

12:53:56 [Sean]

Sean has joined #xmlsec

12:56:04 [PHB]

The power of reference - traffic on my blog up by 2,000 hits in past hour after link from a big blog

12:56:15 [tlr]

who linked to you?

12:56:29 [fjh]

what is the URI for your blog? :)

12:56:29 [PHB]

Talking Points Memo,

12:56:39 [PHB]

http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/

12:57:12 [deastl]

deastl has joined #xmlsec

12:57:24 [tlr]

ScribeNick: deastl

12:58:06 [Zakim]

+ +aaaa

12:58:32 [tlr]

zakim, call thomas-781

12:58:32 [Zakim]

ok, tlr; the call is being made

12:58:33 [Zakim]

+Thomas

12:58:54 [tlr]

zakim, aaaa is deastl

12:58:54 [Zakim]

+deastl; got it

12:58:56 [jcc]

jcc has joined #xmlsec

12:59:05 [fjh]

zakim, who is on the call?

12:59:05 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Frederick_Hirsch, deastl, Thomas

12:59:40 [tlr]

zakim, I am thomas

12:59:40 [Zakim]

ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas

12:59:45 [Zakim]

+grw

13:00:05 [Zakim]

+sean

13:01:00 [tlr]

phb, re your blog item: 10 person-years are dirt cheap, you just need to recruit them in the right places, or with the right incentives.

13:01:25 [fjh]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0025.html

13:01:31 [tlr]

in a TV report about labor in china, the other day, the key quote was: "Oh yes, it's manual labor, otherwise it's not so cheap"

13:01:36 [Zakim]

+RobMiller

13:01:41 [tlr]

s/phb, re your blog item: 10 person-years are dirt cheap, you just need to recruit them in the right places, or with the right incentives.//

13:01:46 [tlr]

s/in a TV report about labor in china, the other day, the key quote was: "Oh yes, it's manual labor, otherwise it's not so cheap"//

13:02:18 [Zakim]

+Hal_Lockhart

13:02:42 [deastl]

rdmiller says he is not on IRC due to web proxy problems

13:04:00 [fjh]

zakim, who is on the call?

13:04:00 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Frederick_Hirsch, deastl, Thomas, grw, sean, RobMiller, Hal_Lockhart

13:04:08 [Zakim]

+??P6

13:04:14 [tlr]

zakim, ??P6 is jcc

13:04:14 [Zakim]

+jcc; got it

13:04:58 [tlr]

Topic: administrvia

13:05:05 [deastl]

Topic: Administrative

13:05:30 [deastl]

chair: looking for scribes for future calls

13:06:14 [deastl]

chair: request for eview by another W3C group to review material, see link in agenda

13:06:23 [fjh]

008 plenary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0014.html

13:06:30 [fjh]

s/00/200

13:06:38 [Zakim]

+PHB

13:06:41 [hal]

hal has joined #xmlsec

13:06:53 [fjh]

pls review widget signing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0017.html

13:06:57 [deastl]

chair: Hal ageed to scribe on the 26th, still look for scribe to the 19th

13:07:04 [deastl]

Topic: minutes from last time

13:07:22 [deastl]

Chair: any comments?

13:07:33 [tlr]

http://www.w3.org/2007/06/05-xmlsec-minutes.html

13:07:37 [deastl]

Chair: none, minutes approved

13:07:40 [tlr]

yep

13:07:46 [tlr]

zakim, who is muted?

13:07:46 [Zakim]

I see no one muted

13:07:50 [tlr]

zakim, mute me

13:07:50 [Zakim]

Thomas should now be muted

13:07:56 [deastl]

Topic: review of actions

13:07:59 [tlr]

zakim, unmute me

13:07:59 [Zakim]

Thomas should no longer be muted

13:08:07 [tlr]

ACTION-26 continued

13:08:11 [deastl]

chair: Action 26 - open

13:08:20 [deastl]

chair: action 35 open

13:08:44 [tlr]

ACTION-36 continued

13:08:45 [deastl]

chair" action 36 to be reviewed by Juan Carlos - open

13:08:50 [tlr]

s/chair"/chair:/

13:09:00 [deastl]

chair: action 37: to be revied by shaun open

13:09:23 [deastl]

chair: 41 review implementation, not captured in previous minutes, closed

13:09:41 [deastl]

chair: 42 Juan Crlos producing an example. done,

13:09:49 [klanz2]

calling in

13:09:56 [tlr]

konrad is not yet on the phone?

13:10:03 [klanz2]

finished, mail to the list first

13:10:07 [deastl]

chair: 43 Conrad to produce examples, done??

13:10:12 [fjh]

zakim, who is on the call?

13:10:12 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Frederick_Hirsch, deastl, Thomas, grw, sean, RobMiller, Hal_Lockhart, jcc, PHB

13:10:18 [tlr]

konrad, how about joining?

13:10:22 [tlr]

zakim, code?

13:10:22 [Zakim]

the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), tlr

13:10:28 [deastl]

chair: leave 43 open to be conservative

13:10:33 [deastl]

chair: 44 closed, update the draft

13:10:53 [klanz2]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0031.html

13:11:01 [deastl]

chair: 45, done

13:11:07 [deastl]

chair: 46, done

13:11:43 [deastl]

chair: 47, decryption update draft, done

13:11:47 [Zakim]

+??P8

13:11:50 [Zakim]

-grw

13:12:05 [tlr]

zakim, ??P8 is konrad

13:12:05 [Zakim]

+konrad; got it

13:12:08 [Zakim]

-konrad

13:12:12 [deastl]

chair: 48, proposal to resolve issue

13:12:14 [klanz2]

got kicked out

13:12:21 [deastl]

jcc: 48 still open

13:12:31 [Zakim]

+grw

13:13:17 [deastl]

tlr: Action 39 shows open, would like to close it as done

13:13:24 [deastl]

chair: OK, close 39

13:13:46 [deastl]

chair: if/when Konrad come back talk about 49, 43

13:13:51 [deastl]

Topic: workshop

13:14:12 [deastl]

chair: Have revised CFP. Ready for release?

13:14:23 [Zakim]

+??P8

13:14:26 [deastl]

tlr: Have already submittted to W3C mgmt for approval

13:14:30 [deastl]

chair: what next

13:14:32 [tlr]

zakim, ??P8 is klanz2

13:14:32 [Zakim]

+klanz2; got it

13:14:35 [klanz2]

zakim, +??P8 is klanz2

13:14:35 [Zakim]

sorry, klanz2, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'

13:14:47 [deastl]

tlr: next, have set up mailing list to receive position papers

13:14:55 [klanz2]

zakim, ? is klanz2

13:14:55 [Zakim]

sorry, klanz2, I do not recognize a party named '?'

13:15:05 [deastl]

tlr: hope can announce tomorrow morning so we can start recruiting

13:15:20 [klanz2]

zakim, klanz2 is +??P8

13:15:20 [Zakim]

++??P8; got it

13:15:21 [deastl]

tlr: then get nervous because people ususally submit at deadline

13:15:44 [deastl]

chiar: sticking with 25/26 September dates, hosted at Verisgin?

13:15:51 [deastl]

tlr: Yes, hosting confirmed.

13:16:16 [deastl]

chair: didn't change due to short timeline, etc.

13:16:25 [tlr]

zakim, who is on the phone?

13:16:25 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Frederick_Hirsch, deastl, Thomas, sean, RobMiller, Hal_Lockhart, jcc, PHB, grw, +??P8

13:16:32 [deastl]

chair: Phil, give him action to create logistics page?

13:16:57 [PHB]

sorry, got asked question

13:17:24 [deastl]

tlr: will need logistics page with hotels, etc. Generally detailed logistics page only available to registrants

13:17:50 [deastl]

tlr: happy to make an Action or just trust PHB to handle it

13:18:07 [fjh]

ACTION: phb to create workshop logistics page

13:18:07 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-50 - Create workshop logistics page [on Phillip Hallam-Baker - due 2007-06-19].

13:18:12 [deastl]

tlr: By mid-

13:18:22 [deastl]

tlr: by mi-July is fine

13:18:47 [deastl]

tlr: Critical for people to do outreach of CFP

13:19:03 [tlr]

Topic: action items (2)

13:19:16 [deastl]

chair: Konrad, status of Action 43?

13:19:36 [deastl]

Konrad: should be closed. Original breakage example has been clarified

13:19:43 [tlr]

ACTION-43 closed

13:19:43 [trackbot-ng]

Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet

13:20:03 [deastl]

Konrad: discharged on original brakage issue

13:20:20 [deastl]

chair: Action 49 Konrad?

13:20:33 [deastl]

Konrad: That one is also completed. Examples sent to list today.

13:20:42 [tlr]

ACTION-49 closed

13:20:42 [trackbot-ng]

Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet

13:20:43 [tlr]

http://www.w3.org/mid/466E7D31.20700@iaik.tugraz.at

13:20:54 [klanz2]

Action-49:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0028.html

13:21:05 [klanz2]

Action-49: "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0028.html"

13:21:13 [deastl]

chair: action items and workshop review completed

13:21:20 [deastl]

Topic: Decyrption transforms

13:21:36 [klanz2]

Action-43: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0027.html

13:21:44 [deastl]

chair: Have fixed for canonicalization 1.1, next step move to public review

13:21:46 [tlr]

s/Decyprtion/Decryption/

13:21:57 [deastl]

chair: don't think people have looked at it, no reason not to give people another week to review

13:22:15 [deastl]

chair: OK, that plan accepted

13:22:40 [deastl]

Topic: Distinguished Names

13:23:14 [fjh]

"compliant with RFC2253" or "compliant with the DNAME processing rules at end of section"

13:23:25 [deastl]

chair: We change the bullet list (agenda 6a) ...current editor's draft incorrect

13:23:26 [klanz2]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0016.html

13:23:38 [fjh]

current proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0004.htm

13:23:46 [klanz2]

##1##

13:23:51 [deastl]

chair: Konrad has put a proposal on the list which restored bullet items

13:24:10 [deastl]

chair: do we want to make this change? What we have no is not quite right

13:24:44 [deastl]

chair: Are we ok with Konrad's change? Should we post it to chat?

13:25:15 [klanz2]

##1##

13:25:15 [klanz2]

As I wrote in [4] already

13:25:15 [klanz2]

The text says:

13:25:15 [klanz2]

"At least one element, from the following ... "

13:25:15 [klanz2]

So the bullet points will still have to enumerate the the choice of

13:25:16 [klanz2]

elements within the content of |X509Data| which is not the case in the

13:25:18 [klanz2]

current red line document ... and will need to be changed to something like the following:

13:25:20 [klanz2]

[4]:

13:25:22 [klanz2]

> * The |X509IssuerSerial| element, which contains an X.509

13:25:24 [klanz2]

> issuer distinguished name/serial number pair. The distinguished

13:25:26 [klanz2]

> name SHOULD be compliant with the DNAME

13:25:28 [klanz2]

> encoding rules at the end of this section and the serial

13:25:30 [klanz2]

> number is represented as a decimal integer,

13:25:32 [klanz2]

> * The |X509SubjectName| element, which contains an X.509

13:25:34 [klanz2]

> subject distinguished name that SHOULD be compliant with the

13:25:36 [klanz2]

> DNAME encoding rules at the end of this section,

13:25:38 [klanz2]

[4]

13:25:40 [klanz2]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0004.html

13:25:40 [jcc]

q+

13:26:08 [fjh]

ack jcc

13:26:21 [jcc]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0020.html

13:26:28 [deastl]

jcc: I send some comments a few days ago

13:26:49 [deastl]

jcc: First bullet is OK

13:26:50 [jcc]

The

13:26:50 [jcc]

>> distinguished

13:26:50 [jcc]

>> name SHOULD be compliant with the DNAME

13:26:50 [jcc]

>> encoding rules at the end of this section and the serial

13:26:50 [jcc]

>> number is represented as a decimal integer,

13:27:25 [deastl]

jcc: "and number is reperested by a decimal integer" is not necssary as schema says that

13:27:29 [klanz2]

I'm not strong about this ...

13:28:10 [klanz2]

q+

13:28:20 [fjh]

ack klanz

13:28:49 [Sean]

q+

13:28:50 [deastl]

Konrad: Don't see harm in having this in both the text and schema

13:29:02 [deastl]

tlr: we are dealing with Erratum 1

13:29:26 [fjh]

E01 2002-01-28 (Editorial):

13:29:35 [klanz2]

N.B.: the bullet points will still have to enumerate the the choice of

13:29:35 [klanz2]

elements within the content of |X509Data|

13:29:40 [fjh]

http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xmldsig-errata#E01

13:29:48 [deastl]

tlr: DNAME rules, which take precidence, are subtly different from RFC 2253... what does this have to do with schema values?

13:30:42 [deastl]

chair: are we going beyond the Errata

13:31:04 [deastl]

chair: any other opinions, would like to resolve

13:31:29 [Sean]

I agree with jcc, no need to mention serial number in first bullet.

13:31:59 [Zakim]

-PHB

13:32:00 [deastl]

chair: maybe way forward is to remove that

13:32:01 [klanz2]

s/and the serial number is represented as a decimal integer//

13:32:11 [deastl]

tlr: can Konrad type updated text

13:32:44 [klanz2]

[4]:

13:32:44 [klanz2]

> * The |X509IssuerSerial| element, which contains an X.509

13:32:44 [klanz2]

> issuer distinguished name/serial number pair. The distinguished

13:32:44 [klanz2]

> name SHOULD be compliant with the DNAME

13:32:44 [klanz2]

> encoding rules at the end of this section,

13:32:45 [klanz2]

> * The |X509SubjectName| element, which contains an X.509

13:32:47 [klanz2]

> subject distinguished name that SHOULD be compliant with the

13:32:49 [klanz2]

> DNAME encoding rules at the end of this section,

13:33:00 [deastl]

chair: proposal becomes what the Errata tried to say originally

13:33:32 [deastl]

Konrad: No, actually we removed the first two bullet points and merged..

13:33:53 [deastl]

fjh: reads awkwardly

13:34:14 [deastl]

chair: OK with approving

13:34:23 [klanz2]

+1 to fjh

13:34:46 [tlr]

+1

13:34:54 [Zakim]

+PHB

13:34:57 [jcc]

+jcc

13:35:02 [deastl]

chair: OK, get red line fixed and then consider approving whole section

13:35:04 [tlr]

phill, did the connection drop suddenly?

13:35:21 [deastl]

chair: any objection to tentative approve understanding we will re-reveiw whole section

13:35:43 [PHB]

No, I just moved to my upstairs office

13:35:54 [deastl]

(no ojbections)

13:36:06 [tlr]

ah, good

13:36:16 [fjh]

RESOLUTION: Adopt change as noted above to 4.4.4 first 2 bullets, then review 4.4.4 as a whole later

13:36:49 [klanz2]

##2##

13:36:49 [klanz2]

I also believe we agree on the following mentioned in [5] about the

13:36:49 [klanz2]

DNAME escaping rules at the end of the section:

13:36:49 [klanz2]

> I would assume that leading spaces have been forgotten to be mentioned

13:36:49 [klanz2]

> in the first sub point of the second bullet point.

13:36:50 [deastl]

RRSAgent, where am I?

13:36:50 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-xmlsec-irc#T13-36-50

13:36:50 [klanz2]

> This position is also supported by the examples given in

13:36:52 [klanz2]

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0246.html .

13:37:14 [fjh]

p

13:37:18 [fjh]

original was:

13:37:20 [fjh]

"Also, strings in DNames (X509IssuerSerial,X509SubjectName, and

13:37:29 [fjh]

KeyName if approriate) should be encoded as follows:"

13:37:33 [fjh]

now in red-line:

13:37:40 [fjh]

"DNames (X509IssuerSerial, X509SubjectName, and KeyName if

13:37:49 [fjh]

appropriate) should be encoded in accordance with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN]

13:37:57 [fjh]

except for the encoding of string values within a DName:"

13:38:33 [deastl]

Topic: Optionality of DNAME encoding rules

13:38:48 [deastl]

chair: Konrad said it should be optional

13:39:03 [deastl]

chair: Do we agree, should we captialize SHOULD?

13:40:13 [deastl]

konrad: I had a closer look at postings to list of test cases. Speaks about DNAME encloding rules in such a way to imply it should be optional

13:40:27 [deastl]

deastl: I don't remember

13:40:39 [klanz2]

some evidence:

13:40:39 [klanz2]

[2] says: "The following example set contains test vectors for the

13:40:39 [klanz2]

OPTIONAL DNAME encoding"

13:40:39 [klanz2]

[3] says: "

13:40:39 [klanz2]

* The |X509IssuerSerial| element, which contains an X.509 issuer

13:40:40 [klanz2]

distinguished name/serial number pair that SHOULD be compliant

13:40:42 [klanz2]

with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN

13:40:44 [klanz2]

<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-LDAP-DN>],

13:40:46 [klanz2]

* The |X509SubjectName| element, which contains an X.509 subject

13:40:48 [klanz2]

distinguished name that SHOULD be compliant with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN

13:40:50 [klanz2]

<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-LDAP-DN>],

13:40:53 [klanz2]

"

13:40:54 [klanz2]

[3] only says: "... should be encoded ... " where should is written in

13:40:56 [klanz2]

small capitalization to the additional rules

13:40:56 [deastl]

chair: what does optionality mean for interoperability...?

13:40:58 [klanz2]

I hence conclude the only normative statement in the original text is

13:41:00 [klanz2]

that "distinguished names SHOULD be compliant with RFC2253".

13:41:02 [klanz2]

[2] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2001/04/05-xmldsig-interop.html#DNAME

13:41:04 [klanz2]

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-X509Data

13:41:22 [tlr]

q+

13:41:30 [fjh]

ack sean

13:41:30 [klanz2]

+1 to sean

13:41:41 [fjh]

ack Thomas

13:41:43 [deastl]

should stry to stay within RFC 2253

13:42:22 [deastl]

Greg: doesn't seem like we can make a statement any stronger than should

13:42:32 [fjh]

greg: cannot go beyond SHOULD with errata

13:42:38 [deastl]

r: mistake is about not escaping leading white space?

13:42:48 [deastl]

right

13:43:12 [deastl]

tlr: RFC 2253 says deal with UTF-8 by escaping some characters with backslash

13:43:26 [klanz2]

q+

13:43:51 [deastl]

tlr: is an implementation that uses \20 for space compliant or marginal?

13:44:10 [deastl]

tlr: probably any reasonable implementation will understandt \20

13:44:21 [fjh]

ack klanz

13:44:50 [deastl]

Konrad: RFC 2253 only talks about he first and last white space if any in a string, interior space can be escaped as \20

13:45:08 [deastl]

Konrad: some implementations might work but, strictly speaking, it does not comply

13:45:30 [deastl]

chair: Do we agree that we can't go beyond "should" because we are doing Errata

13:46:30 [klanz2]

Additionally some text like the following might do the trick for support

13:46:30 [klanz2]

legacy signatures:

13:46:30 [klanz2]

> For legacy support please note, that applications receiving signatures containing DNAMES having AttributeValues terminated by "\20"

13:46:30 [klanz2]

> are RECOMMENDED to treat an "\20" escaped character at the end of an AttributeValue as if they were normal escaped space characters "\ " conformant to section 2.4 of RFC 2253. Do not convert "\20" to "\ " if the DNAME in question is signed.

13:47:05 [deastl]

Is it fair to current implementations to change the rules, even to a should

13:47:22 [tlr]

q+

13:47:45 [fjh]

ack Thomas

13:47:47 [klanz2]

q+

13:48:27 [deastl]

tlr: This is murky territory. Dealing with RFC 2253 which isn't that clear and interacting with other specs...

13:48:47 [klanz2]

-1 to tlr

13:49:14 [deastl]

tlr: suggest sticking to current Errata. Before resolving this Errata, someone whould construct a number of simple test cases and try them on existing implementations.

13:49:35 [fjh]

q+

13:49:37 [deastl]

tlr: The best we can do is to try to figure out how people have interpreeted the spec

13:50:18 [deastl]

tlr: Have specific rule on the leading/traing white space seems too deep in details...

13:50:18 [fjh]

ack klanz

13:50:42 [deastl]

Konrad: I disagree. We can do it better and be backward compatible. Collateral damage will be essentially null.

13:51:12 [fjh]

ack fjh

13:51:13 [deastl]

Konrad: leading/traiing white space should almost never occur in certificates... but should allow old practice

13:51:47 [deastl]

fjh: heard two things: red-line has change based on Errata, uses lower case should. That does not seem controversial.

13:51:50 [tlr]

q+

13:52:05 [deastl]

fjh: But Konrad is suggesting enhacing with further text. Is that right?

13:52:06 [fjh]

ack thomas

13:52:43 [klanz2]

q+

13:52:47 [deastl]

tlr: the one normativity change we are making is to item 1 where we are saying "SHOULD" be compatible to DNAME encoding rules

13:52:58 [deastl]

tlr: No longer making only informational change

13:53:06 [fjh]

ack klanz

13:53:41 [deastl]

Konrad: we are fixing an internal contradicition. It used to say should follow RFC 2253 but then gave slightly different rules...

13:54:40 [deastl]

tlr: Can read RFC 2253 to give format and rules for generating that format. Rules are partially optional.

13:55:26 [deastl]

tlr: xmlsig rules can be interpreted in a way consisten with normative rules in RFC 2253 in such a way as to be not contradictory

13:55:56 [deastl]

tlr: Disagree with Konrad's statement that there is a contradiction

13:56:16 [deastl]

Konrad: can give contractory examples

13:56:24 [deastl]

tlr:Not clear to me...

13:57:04 [deastl]

chair: need action(s) to clear this up. tlr has mentioned examples.

13:57:15 [deastl]

tlr: missing converting back rules

13:57:37 [klanz2]

q+

13:57:50 [deastl]

chair: tlr, can you put stuff on list to explain

13:58:03 [deastl]

chair: can anyone else on call help?

13:58:27 [deastl]

chair: we need more infor. Can't go forward otherwise

13:58:54 [deastl]

chair: Best thing for Thomas to put a message on the list...

13:59:22 [deastl]

chiar: People on call should look at agenda, at other DNAME items, so we can get it right for the next call

13:59:39 [deastl]

chair: anything we can do on the list would help

13:59:41 [tlr]

s/chiar/chair/

14:00:06 [deastl]

chair: I'll try to speed up the Action item portion of calls.

14:00:24 [deastl]

chair: anyting else for remaining minute of call?

14:00:40 [deastl]

chair: Konrad, tlr, ..., any furhter suggestion for how to make progress?

14:01:58 [deastl]

Konrad:The suggestion should affect only future coreated signtures, like the changes we made re Canonicalization 1.1...

14:02:14 [klanz2]

I 'll have to go now

14:02:35 [klanz2]

+1 to tlr

14:02:45 [klanz2]

I'll be on the list

14:02:53 [deastl]

tlr: One more thing: dealing with references to an obsoleded RFC. I'm checking the new replacemented to see if it is relevant.

14:03:15 [fjh]

ACTION: tlr to see if RFC4514 is consistent with dsig encoding rules

14:03:15 [trackbot-ng]

Created ACTION-51 - See if RFC4514 is consistent with dsig encoding rules [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-06-19].

14:03:24 [tlr]

and, indeed, it is!

14:03:35 [Zakim]

-Hal_Lockhart

14:03:36 [deastl]

chair: ajourn

14:03:36 [Zakim]

-grw

14:03:37 [Zakim]

-PHB

14:03:39 [Zakim]

-Thomas

14:03:41 [Zakim]

-Frederick_Hirsch

14:03:43 [Zakim]

-sean

14:03:45 [Zakim]

-RobMiller

14:03:49 [Zakim]

- +??P8

14:03:51 [Zakim]

-jcc

14:03:53 [Zakim]

-deastl

14:03:56 [Zakim]

T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM has ended

14:03:57 [Zakim]

Attendees were Frederick_Hirsch, +aaaa, Thomas, deastl, grw, sean, RobMiller, Hal_Lockhart, jcc, PHB, konrad, +??P8

14:06:21 [fjh]

Thank you Donald for scribing.

14:06:44 [tlr]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

14:06:44 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-xmlsec-minutes.html tlr

14:06:50 [tlr]

rrsagent, please make this record public

16:25:43 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #xmlsec

17:48:04 [PHB]

PHB has left #xmlsec