See also: IRC log, member-confidential full minutes
<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0025.html
<fjh> ScribeNick: PHB2
<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0025.html
<fjh> public minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-xmlsec-minutes-public.html
<tlr> ups, I didn't actually announce them to the list
<fjh> member only http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-xmlsec-minutes.html
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-xmlsec-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2007/12/11-xmlsec-minutes-public.html
<tlr> RESOLUTION: minutes approved, barring objections by e-mail before tomorrow
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved unless objection by email received by end of day
<fjh> WG Charter extended to 31 March
We share redline with XML core
fjh: XML core has sent some replies to our comments asking if they have satisfied concerns ... response appears to be yes,
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0014.html
Did we address change about reverting language that was confusing at the interop?
FH: We need to answer yes asap in order to let them go to PR does anyone need more time, is silence consent? lets go through them all and do one resolution. Second one was base language, third removing a table and replacing with ours
FH: Resolution: approve the changes
<fjh> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WG agrees to respond "yes" to XML Core on three comment disposition requests
<fjh> RESOLUTION: WG agrees to respond "yes" to XML Core on three comment disposition requests noted in agenda
<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0025.html
FH: is this work complete, does Juan Carlos want time for review?
Juan Carlos: have not had a chance, give me an action,
<fjh> ACTION: jcc review test case naming changes and updated test case document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-123 - Review test case naming changes and updated test case document [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-12-25].
FH: don't want to load you if you are busy
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0009.html
FH: next item, my editorial comments on test cases and stuff can we assign this as an action to an editor(s)
Sean: can assign to me
<Zakim> tlr, you wanted to ask if we aim to go for another round of polishing and creation of a WG Note
tlr: looking through interop do at least two thirds the way to something we might want to publish more broadly. Would editors be willing to take time to make a formal WG note to preserve test cases etc. for posterity etc.
Konrad: I can help there, just need a concrete target defined
<jcc> yes, make a resolution....
FH: should we make a resolution to turn into a note?
tlr: first decision point is to decide we want to, then second point to request publication of a particular version.
<fjh> Proposed RESOLUTION: WG would like to make test case document a W3C Note, formal decision later
<klanz2> +1
<jcc> +1
<fjh> RESOLUTION: WG would like to make test case document a W3C Note, formal decision later
<shivaram> +1
+1
<fjh> ACTION: Sean Review and implement changes noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0009.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-124 - Review and implement changes noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Dec/0009.html [on Sean Mullan - due 2007-12-25].
FH: need some other stuff done, link anchors in the document to allow references into it.
tlr: another thing for sean and me to think about
<fjh> ACTION: tlr to update test cases document with anchors to enable links from implementation reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-125 - Update test cases document with anchors to enable links from implementation reports [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-12-25].
<tlr> Konrad, Juan Carlos, Sean volunteer to work on this.
FH: what to do with use cases, best thing is for JC to review it
JC: ok I will do that
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/c14n11/report.html
FH: next topic implementation report.
FH: mostly green only two entries are yellow
JC: are they the new tasks (yes)
FH: we need to do the one for signature as well and for canon 1.1 we need to update that implementation report so that the tests left are linked, is this all with you or is it for the WG to make it happen?
tlr: need links into the test cases and explanatory text, dont expect that much volume, not critical
Konrad: can we do a diff version
<fjh> Konrad: diff of test cases document possible
tlr: it is not a property of the style sheet, is possible but if it is critical can do it but easier to do a changelog if thats OK
FH: if you can help please send
contribs to the list
... NEXT TOPIC
<fjh> Namespace document update proposal in the agenda, discussed last week
<tlr> ups
FH: RFC 2723, RFC2986 issues, XML schema references former not latter, we are not blocked on this, we have language that deals with this appropriately, we don't need XML signature to be fixed
FH: we don't require XML data types to reference latest URI RFC we are OK because we have the appropriate language in our spec
FH: we don't have a problem
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-URI
tlr: Part of the change we are
proposing to 4431 is change to schema types right? But you
better perform that escaping
... Would be prettier situation if the thing was to reference
3986 but don't know practical difference
FH: OK so not a problem
<fjh> ACTION: tlr check consistency of 4.3.3.1 and references [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-126 - Check consistency of 4.3.3.1 and references [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-12-25].
The group discussed the relationship of the proposed charter text to both the proposed derived key work item, and to standards work in other bodies that is layered on top of XML Signature. The group decided to keep the details of this discussion member-confidential. The discussion's resulted in an action item and a resolution:
<tlr ACTION: tlr to propose change to charter draft that opens encryption, in a limited way [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-127 - Propose change to charter draft that opens encryption, in a limited way [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-12-25].
<fjh> RESOLUTION: Group believes charter draft is broad enough to allow chartered WG to address derived key or other use case concerns and not need to explicitly call out examination of other stds work
Full details are available from the member-confidential full minutes.
<fjh> action-122 closed
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-122 Propose concrete edit to proposed charter to deal with encryption / derived specs closed
<klanz2> Happy Holidays, and a happy new year ...
<EdSimon> Happy New Year everyone
<tlr> happy holidays etc