See also: IRC log; full member-confidential minutes
<trackbot-ng> Date: 22 January 2008
<tlr> Scribe: Hal
<tlr> ScribeNick: hal
<tlr> Next meeting: 29 January, John Wray to scribe
<tlr> tlr: hal, news on WAF?
<tlr> hal: dubious process in their charter in opinion of a number of us, so focused on that point
<tlr> tlr: they might move quickly, recommend reviewing soon
<tlr> hal: agenda for day is 1/2 page, not very mysterious
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2008Jan/0033.html
<tlr> hal: they'll convene plenary, come to consensus what problems researchers should work on
hal: there will be 4 breakouts - I plan to attend the security section
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/15-xmlsec-minutes.html
<tlr> RESOLUTION: minutes accepted as true record
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/wiki/charter
<tlr> hal: would like to see deployment as superset of implementation
<tlr> brich: it's not entirely performance of implementation
<tlr> ... point is that the architecture should enable efficient implementation ...
<tlr> hal: not sure the wording change says that, but liked what bruce just said
<brich> tony's point was that we need to ensure that efficient implementations can be done, in that the architecture and design encourage efficient implementation
<klanz2> also solution space: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-00#section-2.4.1
<klanz2> Minimal Canonicalization
In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working Group's attention is in particular called to performance and efficiency for various deployments.
<tlr> In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working Group's attention is in particular called to the performance and memory efficiency of implementations.
In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working
Group's attention is in particular called to the performance and
memory efficiency of implementations.
<klanz2> what is our influence on deployments?
<shivaram> deployment can only be a guideline just like architecture
<klanz2> that's best practices isn't it?
<shivaram> yes
<klanz2> new compulsory algorithms and defaults for canonicalization
<klanz2> are considered
<shivaram> then qualifying "reasonable implementation" needs to be addressed
<tlr> Specify one or more canonicalization algorithms to address the requirements agreed. At least one such algorithm should be suitable to replace Canonical XML 1.1 as a mandatory to implement canonicalization method.
<tlr> In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working Group's attention is in particular called to performance and efficiency of implementations of the XML security specifications suite, as manifested in various deployments.
<tlr> hal: guess this might meet concern
<tlr> brich: speaking of implementation, not efficiency of deployment
tlr: hard to understand distinction being made
<klanz2> In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working Group's attention is in particular called to performance and efficiency as reported by implementations and deployments.
hal: not sure Tony's proposed wording addresses his stated concern
<shivaram> agree with Bruce's statement just now on the phone
brirch: not this groups job to examine existing implementations
<tlr> shivaram, you were agreeing with bruce
klanz2: agree word deployment doesn't add much
shivaram: should not preclude
efficiency of implementations
... can not rtalk about deployments per se
<shivaram> The Specification should not preclude efficient implementation.
<tlr> hal: make it clear that we're specifying algorithms, they will be designed to be implemented efficiently, but we're not going to spend time optimizing current implementations
<klanz2> +1
<tlr> brich: In considering ..., WG's attention is in particular called to algorithmic performance and efficiency.
<tlr> hal: ability of algos to be implemented with good performance and memory footprint
<shivaram> We have no way to understand what kinds of deployment will exist tomorrow. So, including deployment in the same sentence as perofrmance may be problematic
tlr: will go to team for
polishing, I am leader
... is brich proposal sufficient for consensus?
tlr: propose taking bruce's words - then polish wording
<klanz2> ok
<tlr> In considering these use cases and requirements, the Working Group's attention is in particular called to algorithmic performance and efficiency.
+1
<brich> +1
<tlr> PROPOSED: replace current "deployment" text with above
general agreement
<tlr> RESOLUTION: replace current "deployment" text with above
<tlr> PROPOSED: forward current status of wiki charter to Team for further processing, thereby discharging chartered deliverable
<tlr> RESOLUTION: forward current status of wiki charter to Team for further processing, thereby discharging chartered deliverable
tlr: will get charter in shape for AC review
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/c14n11/report.html
tlr: C14N 1.1 should be published as a Proposed Rec by Jan 29
Details of individual implementations' results and test evaluation frameworks were discussed. The full record is part of the member-confidential full minutes.
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to propose useful language for defCan tests, no detailed results [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-140 - Propose useful language for defCan tests, no detailed results [on Thomas Roessler - due 2008-01-29].
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-74
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-74 Update Acknowledgements section in XML SIgnature 2nd edition closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-130
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-130 Remove unused DName cases from the doc closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-139
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-139 Fix acknowledgements section closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-134
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-134 Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-135
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-135 Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public closed
<klanz2> yes
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-136
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-136 Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-137
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-137 Confirm whether implementation report for c14n11 can be made public closed
<tlr> trackbot-ng, close ACTION-138
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-138 Send inventory for signature implementation report closed
klanz: there is an interop event to be held in March - posted to list
<klanz2> http://www.etsi.org/plugtests/XAdES/XAdES.htm
<klanz2> Registration Deadline is 15 Feb. 2008 ...