W3C

XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group Teleconference

15 Jan 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Frederick Hirsch, Thomas Roessler, Sean Mullan, Rob Miller, Pratik Datta, John Wray, Hal Lockhart, Ed Simon
Regrets
Juan Carlos Cruellas, Konrad Lanz, Bruce Rich
Chair
Frederick Hirsch
Scribe
Sean Mullan

Contents


 

 

<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> 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 see http://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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Frederick to send inventory for signature implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] ACTION: thomas to fix acknowledgements section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/01/29 14:00:19 $