XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG Conference Call
31 Jul 2007

 

 

<tlr> trackbot-ng, please start meeting

<tlr> good morning...

<tlr> Frederick, I assume RRSagent is collaborating now?

<tlr> trackbot-ng, start meeting

<trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Group/track/

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

<trackbot-ng> Date: 31 July 2007

<tlr> actually, it's not "please start meeting", but "start meeting"

<tlr> ... and it'll do the initiation stuff

Administrative

<tlr> ScribeNick: tlr

fjh: Tony trying to get the scribing set up
... Rob to scribe next time ...
... please submit position papers soon ...
... thanks to repsondents to interop questionnaire ...
... IBM is going to participate, will have 4 implementations ...
... more people attending ...
... thanks to Hal for definitive answer ...
... questionnaire is closed now ...

??: who participating?

tlr: IBM, Sean, Juan-Carlos, Konrad

fjh: last meeting's minutes?

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-xmlsec-minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes approved

action items

<fjh> action 26 open

<fjh> action-50 open

<fjh> ACTION-53 not ready for last call, due to XPointer issue, close. Open new issue when ready

<fjh> action-64 done, close

<fjh> action-65 keep open

<scribe> ScribeNick: nadalin

<tlr> welcome tony

<jcc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJun/att-0016/01-merlin-xmldsig-twenty-three.tar.gz

<fjh> to develop/retrieve test cases for C14N with comments, scheme-based xpointers

<scribe> Scribe:nadalin

<fjh> correction - keep action 53 has pending rather than closing, revisit later.

<tlr> fjh, you're confusing me -- 53 is the "work toward last call" one that we closed.

<tlr> this is 65

jcc: generate more simple test cases, jcc to send proposal to list

<tlr> I'm hearing jcc perfectly well

<EdS> jcc, I hear him fine too.

thomas: done with 53 and 65

<tlr> ... for the purpose of this call ...

<scribe> ACTION: JCC to send proposal for 65 to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-70 - Send proposal for 65 to list [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-08-07].

<tlr> fjh: 65 continued; juan carlos to refine

fjh: action 66 complete
... action 67 complete

<fjh> action 67, also added xquery 1.0

fjh: action 68 still open

<fjh> use test cases for examples in best practices

fjh: action 69 still some stuff EdS has to complete, there are attribute name issues still open

<tlr> utf-8 string is superset of printable utf-8 string. ;)

Sean: UTF8 and Printable String issues, are they the same ?
... Send email to list on the UTF8 and printable UTF8 sting

fjh: action 69 closed

<tlr> ACTION: sean to send e-mail to list on UTF-8 and printable UTF-8 strings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-71 - Send e-mail to list on UTF-8 and printable UTF-8 strings [on Sean Mullan - due 2007-08-07].

xpointer issues

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/

fjh: new editor draft from Thomas

<tlr> xpointer() XPointer scheme in WD

tlr: use language from XPointer framework

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-ReferenceProcessingModel

<EdS> I don't hear Thomas

<jcc> Support of the xpointer() scheme [XPointer-xpointer] beyond the minimal usage discussed in this section is discouraged.

fjh: is xpointer reference recomendation removed from draft, should this be put back in

<klanz2> We will just have to make sure the optional Xpointer functionality supported up to now is not prohibited now

fjh: people review the redline

<tlr> sorry

Konrad: have to make sure that the previous xpointer funtionality is not removed

tlr: its still optional in the latest draft

fjh: use of xpointer is optional not recommended

Konrad: to review and get back to thomas

<fjh> ACTION: klanz2 to review existing use of XML Signature and Xpointer with respect to new redline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-72 - Review existing use of XML Signature and Xpointer with respect to new redline [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-08-07].

<klanz2> #xpointer(//'*[attr='rue'])

<tlr> interesting.

<klanz2> #xpointer(//*[attr='rue'])

<fjh> ebics

<klanz2> ebics

fjh: how many folks are using this form
... can we share editors draft with companies so we can get feedback

<EdS> A Google search on "ebics xpointer" produces a number of interesting examples where xpointer is used.

klanz2: to share drafts and get feedback

<fjh> ACTION: klanz2 to check which xpointers are used and where, contact ebics etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-73 - Check which xpointers are used and where, contact ebics etc [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-08-07].

<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-c14nAlg

tlr: exclusive C14N is not prohibited

<fjh> The Exclusive XML Canonicalization Recommendation [XML-exc-C14N] may be used to address requirements resulting from scenarios where a subdocument is moved between contexts.

<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-c14nAlg

trl [C14N1.0] is mandatory to implement

<EdS> C14N 1.1 is incompatible with C14N 1.0.

<tlr> +1 to that

<fjh> add exclusive to wiki, for chartering, what we want to do

<fjh> sean asked does exclusive c14n spec need update for c14n11

<tlr> attributes in the XML namespace, such as xml:lang and xml:space are not imported into orphan nodes of the document subset, and

tlr: should be no problems with [XML-exc-C14N] per Sean's issue

<EdS> I'm on the queue.

<fjh> tlr: decided at f2f C14N10 remains manditory to enable implementations to receive signatures from previous implementations

EdS: are there interop issues with C14N 1.0 and C14N 1.1

<fjh> ... c14n11 recommended for going forward

<fjh> ack klanz\

<fjh> z

<fjh> klanz: c14n11 explicit in transforms, also.

<EdS> I did not ask whether there are interop issues with C14N 1.0 and C14N1.1. -- there will be! Please correct the minutes above.

<EdS> The minutes should indicate that lack of interoperability between C14N1.1 and C14N 1.0, as it affects the original XML Signature specification and the revised one, was discussed. Thomas reviewed the stance of the first Face-to-Face that addresses this issue.

<tlr> thanks ed

<tlr> jcc, I think we can take this offline

<tlr> put it into CVS.

<fjh> juan carlos: added tests for xml:base , suggest using konrad's cases for appendix A

<fjh> ... next step, test cases for scheme based XPointer

<fjh> ... will be available until next week

Sean: is everone going to submit a position paper