Widgets Voice Conference -- 26 Jun 2008

Date: 26 June 2008

<scribe> Scribe: Art

<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

Review Agenda

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008AprJun/0010.html

AB: any change requests?
... I'd like to add to the agenda a discussion about the Widgets agenda being public or not
... any objections?

MC: no

JS: no

Announcements

AB: any annoucements?
... no meeting July 3 or July 10
... when do you return from the UK, Marcos

MC: late July

JS: I'll be out the last week of July and then in October

Meeting Logistics and Agenda

MC: why is this meeting being done in a member confidential channel?

AB: good question
... because I'm lazy
... it's a lot easier for me as the Scribe for us to use a member-only channel that makes it easy to remove any Member-only/confidential discussions that may arrive
... If no such discussions occur, then 100% of the IRC log becomes the Public minutes
... any objections to the Agenda being sent on the Public-Webapps mail list?
... that's OK with me

JS: OK with me

MC: OK with me

<scribe> ACTION: barstow propose all future Widget agendas be Public and give the WG two weeks to discuss/object [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-waf-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - Propose all future Widget agendas be Public and give the WG two weeks to discuss/object [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-07-03].

Comments on the Requirements LC doc

AB: thanks Marcos for getting this out!

JS: I sent Marcos comments already
... I sent him some additional comments
... I still have some more comments to submit

AB: Marcos, anything you want to discuss?

MC: it's hard to discuss some of the issues without Arve being present
... e.g. he proposed the Security Model
... we also need to have Thomas present for any detailed discussions about Dig Signatures
... Josh raised some good issues that we need to discuss
... thanks for sending the comments!

AB: an action for me, really to make sure we get the right people on the calls re Dig Sig and Security
... We should also try to get Thomas to attend the Turin meeting

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow invite Thomas to the Turin meeting re Dig Sig and Security [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-waf-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Invite Thomas to the Turin meeting re Dig Sig and Security [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-07-03].

AB: can you describe the Tracker your using for LC comments, Marcos?

MC: it's a simple system and addresses many of my requirements

AB: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-reqs-20080625
... nice, I see Marcos is already using it
... I like the consistency we can get if everyone uses it
... the only issue I see is the data is Member-confidential

MC: that's more of an annoyance then a concern
... If people want the data Public, I can do it in a text file
... or if it has a report generator that creates a text format that would be good

Josh's Short Intro

JS: I've been with Mozilla for about eight years
... working on a bunch of different things
... I've also worked in Security and mobile content
... I currently work on Nokia's Internet Tablet product
... WRT WebApps, I'm mainly interested in the Widgets work

AB: it's good to get some "new eyes" looking at our specs

MC: yes, it's really helpful

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow talk to Yahoo!'s AC rep about joining WebApps and participating in the Widgets work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-waf-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Talk to Yahoo!'s AC rep about joining WebApps and participating in the Widgets work [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-07-03].

Open Actions

AB: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/products/5

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close Issue #17 - we will include Auto Updates in v1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-waf-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Close Issue #17 - we will include Auto Updates in v1.0 [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-07-03].

AB: Action #24 - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues/24
... we need to define some type of extension mechanism

JS: yes, this is important

MC: I sent a proposal but it didn't get much support

<scribe> ACTION: Barstow close #24 and re-open a new issue that emphasizes the issue raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0312.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-waf-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Close #24 and re-open a new issue that emphasizes the issue raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0312.html [on Arthur Barstow - due 2008-07-03].

MC: I can close Action #122

AB: it would to close as many of these as possible to minimize the number that need to copied to WebApps

MC: we can close #139 but should check with Charles first

AB: I will close #140 after I ask WSC WG to review the LC doc
... what about #143?

MC: I recommend we close #143

AB: OK with me

JS: me too

<marcos> MC: closed 187

MC: OK, I'll close it

<marcos> MC: closed 185

JS: 19 Dec 2007, Art said he would ask Nokia for a widget security model - part of Action #144

AB: I'm sure I asked for it
... but I didn't get anything I could share with the public

Digital Signature

JS: did you Art make any progress on Action #183 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/actions/183 - Investigate Java model for multiple signatures

AB: yes, I got some info
... In MIDP 2.1, only one signature is allowed in a JAR file
... MIDP 3.0, a JAR can contain multiple signatures

MC: we need to raise an issue on this then
... we need to know "how many signatures to support?"
... I think we were moving to supporting multiple

JS: multiple sigs can be useful when certs come from multiple sources

MC: a question is whether the signature is signed or the contents is signed more than once

AB: Certificate chaining is supported and deployed widely, I think any signature specification including the widgets signing spec should support it.

MC: we are doing that now

AB: Multiple signing is more uncommon. In MIDP, multiple signatures are "parallel" i.e. every signer signs the content independently, signers do not sign each other's signatures

MC: we don't have a solution for either of these at the moment

AB: where is "certificate chaining" defined?

MC: XML Signature spec defines it
... it would be good to outline the major use cases in the Dig Sig spec
... I can create those use cases

JS: I can contribute; this document is important
... and I will submit comments on it
... what is the plan for Dig Sig spec?

MC: the core validation stuff needs to fleshed out
... Getting the core done is most important
... I will try to coordinate working with Josh

AOB

MC: I plan to focus on Auto Updates next week
... want to get that published soon-ish
... certainly before the f2f in Turin
... I'm concerned about the Security spec and the API spec

AB: I'll be on vacation the next two weeks. Return to the Inbox on July 14.

<marcos> MC: Will be on Vacation on 5-10th

- DRAFT -

Widgets Voice Conference

26 Jun 2008

Attendees

Contents