15:02:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wam
15:02:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-wam-irc
15:03:11 <ArtB> zakim, aabb is Mark
15:03:11 <Zakim> +Mark; got it
15:03:18 <Zakim> +??P17
15:03:30 <ArtB> zakim, P17 is Claudio
15:03:30 <Zakim> sorry, ArtB, I do not recognize a party named 'P17'
15:03:36 <Zakim> +Frederick_Hirsch
15:03:42 <ArtB> zakim, ??P17 is Claudio
15:03:42 <Zakim> +Claudio; got it
15:03:51 <ArtB> Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
15:04:06 <ArtB> Date: 8 January 2009
15:04:09 <ArtB> Chair: Art
15:04:16 <ArtB> ScribeNick: ArtB
15:04:18 <marcos> zakim, passcode?
15:04:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), marcos
15:04:19 <ArtB> Scribe: Art
15:04:31 <ArtB> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0033.html
15:04:49 <fjh> fjh has joined #wam
15:04:54 <mpriestl> mpriestl has joined #wam
15:05:05 <fjh> zakim, Frederick_Hirsch is fjh
15:05:05 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
15:05:08 <Zakim> +??P24
15:05:09 <ArtB> Present: Art, Frederick, Mark, Claudio, Jere
15:05:16 <ArtB> zakim, ??P24 is Marcos
15:05:17 <Zakim> +Marcos; got it
15:05:21 <ArtB> Present+ Marcos
15:05:28 <ArtB> Regrets: Arve
15:05:42 <ArtB> Topic: Agenda review and tweak
15:05:48 <ArtB> AB: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0033.html
15:05:54 <ArtB> AB: any change requests?
15:05:56 <ArtB> [None]
15:06:03 <ArtB> Topic: Annoucements
15:06:07 <fjh> q+
15:06:17 <ArtB> AB: I don't have any widget-specific annoucments
15:06:34 <ArtB> FH: XML Sec WG is having a f2f meeting next week
15:06:42 <ArtB> ... we will look at sig properties
15:06:50 <ArtB> ... if anyone wants to attend, please let me know
15:07:10 <ArtB> ... Also, if we have any comments to discuss, I can make that happen
15:07:28 <ArtB> ... I may be able to rearrange things if needed
15:07:39 <fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Jan/0011.html
15:07:49 <ArtB> AB: please notify FH if you want to take advantage of it
15:07:53 <ArtB> MC: I may try to join
15:08:03 <ArtB> AB: any other annoucements?
15:08:08 <ArtB> [None]
15:09:16 <ArtB> Topic: R44. Support for Multiple Message Digest Algorithms
15:10:04 <fjh> +
15:10:07 <fjh> q+
15:10:12 <ArtB> AB: FH thinks the requirement is unclear
15:10:27 <arve> arve has joined #wam
15:10:42 <arve> ArtB: as indicated, I'll be regretting
15:10:50 <ArtB> FH: need to clarify the model
15:11:15 <ArtB> ... this will effect validation
15:11:40 <ArtB> MP: there may be a misunderstanding in what we are trying to achieve
15:11:54 <ArtB> ... expect the sig to always be in the package
15:13:29 <fjh> concerned how core validation can be meaningful if signature not with references, especially if using relative uris
15:13:33 <ArtB> ... [Mark describes some use cases that motiviated his comments]
15:14:11 <fjh> this sounds like an implemention optimization, not sure it belongs in spec
15:14:14 <ArtB> ... I don't want to add complexity
15:14:40 <ArtB> FH: sounds like some pre-caching 
15:15:10 <ArtB> ... I think we just want to say core validation is done via XML Sig spec
15:15:56 <ArtB> MP: don't want the spec to preclude my use case
15:16:32 <ArtB> ... agree we don't want to specify a separate delivery mechanism
15:16:53 <ArtB> ... want to make sure the two major steps can be done in either order
15:17:32 <Zakim> +Shepazu
15:17:34 <ArtB> AB: let's take the tech discussion to the public list
15:17:56 <ArtB> MP: I will respond to the list with more details of the use case
15:18:06 <ArtB> Topic: R45. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms
15:18:48 <ArtB> AB: just need some clarification to SHA1 and SHA256
15:18:58 <ArtB> FH: yes, we need some clarification here
15:19:09 <ArtB> FH: a separate issue is XML Sig 1.1
15:19:34 <ArtB> AB: what is the status and roadmap for 1.1?
15:19:47 <ArtB> FH: we are very close to FPWD for 1.1
15:19:56 <ArtB> ... will be a topic for next week's f2f meeting
15:20:18 <ArtB> ... I don't expect any major issues
15:20:33 <ArtB> ... I think we can align the two specs
15:21:17 <ArtB> ... I think best case in about 3-4 months to start the Candidate phase
15:21:30 <ArtB> ... But we need to discuss this next week
15:22:15 <ArtB> AB: so you expect 1.1 REC in 2009?
15:22:20 <ArtB> FH: yes; definitely
15:22:30 <ArtB> AB: any concerns about 1.1?
15:23:06 <ArtB> MP: are there any other major diffs for 1.1 (besides algorithms)?
15:23:10 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/roadmap/roadmap.html
15:23:40 <ArtB> FH: besides algorithms, SHA-256 migration is in scope
15:24:01 <ArtB> ... we have some minor errata
15:24:25 <ArtB> ... all major changes will be deferred to v2.0
15:25:12 <ArtB> AB: propose we resolve XML Sign 1.1 will be the basis for our spec
15:25:22 <ArtB> AB: any objections to that proposal?
15:25:56 <ArtB> MP: is it possible for this to hold up our spec?
15:27:02 <ArtB> AB: based on what FH said, I think this won't be an issue
15:27:23 <ArtB> Present+ Doug
15:27:43 <ArtB> DS: cannot go to REC if a normative reference is not a REC
15:28:05 <ArtB> ... need a month for PR, month for CR, month for LC
15:28:47 <ArtB> ... Given this, probably will take 4-5 months to get XML Sig to REC, perhaps a bit longer
15:29:28 <ArtB> FH: the two specs could progress together
15:30:29 <ArtB> AB: given where we are today, e.g. no tests, not in LC yet, I don't think we will be blocked by XML Sig 1.1
15:32:27 <ArtB> AB: Mark do you still have some concerns?
15:32:42 <ArtB> MP: I don't have any concerns about using 1.1
15:33:20 <ArtB> AB: any objections to using XML Sig 1.1?
15:33:22 <ArtB> [None]
15:33:45 <ArtB> RESOLUTION: propose we resolve XML Sign 1.1 will be the basis for our spec
15:34:08 <ArtB> Topic: R46 and R49
15:35:04 <ArtB> AB: the email on these shows there is agreement by Mark on FH's changes
15:35:10 <ArtB> AB: is that true?
15:35:12 <ArtB> FH: yes
15:35:15 <ArtB> MP: yes
15:35:27 <ArtB> AB: please implement the proposed changes
15:35:59 <ArtB> Topic: New Req proposal (5): add role of signer
15:36:56 <ArtB> AB: MP raised some questions about the use cases
15:37:07 <ArtB> AB: it wasn't clear to me how it would satisfied
15:37:32 <ArtB> FH: the role could be used to clarify the distributor 
15:37:45 <ArtB> ... could use a signature property
15:38:03 <ArtB> ... I don't think the author element is relevant here
15:39:00 <ArtB> MP: if the roles are different it implies different processing
15:40:16 <ArtB> s/: propose we resolve/: we resolve/
15:40:19 <fjh> MP: different purposes for signing , signer vouching for trust, or update signature
15:41:06 <fjh> MP: role of signature, not role of signer
15:41:44 <ArtB> MP: think something like this is needed but is related to the 2nd requirement proposed
15:42:26 <fjh> MP: usage might be better name
15:43:30 <ArtB> MP: role and usage have been dealt with elsewhere
15:43:38 <ArtB> ... usage is different than policy
15:44:28 <ArtB> s/MP: role and/FH: role and/
15:44:46 <fjh> define property in sig properties, values in widgets signature
15:45:04 <fjh> MPupdate signature indicates update of package
15:47:09 <ArtB> [Some discussions about the update mechanisms: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/ ]
15:48:17 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #wam
15:48:23 <fjh> requirment 5 should be usage instead of role
15:48:56 <ArtB> AB: is there consensus to add req 5?
15:49:02 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
15:49:02 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
15:49:04 <Zakim> +Mike
15:49:05 <ArtB> MC: no, I need to consider this more
15:49:12 <ArtB> FH: I tihink we need it
15:49:19 <Zakim> -Shepazu
15:49:30 <ArtB> MC: I want some time to think about this
15:50:11 <ArtB> AB: how much time do  you need Marcos?
15:50:15 <ArtB> MC: one week
15:50:21 <ArtB> MP: I will send an email by Monday
15:50:39 <ArtB> AB: what about req 6?
15:50:54 <Zakim> -Mike
15:50:56 <fjh> suggest profile with uri for signature spec
15:51:10 <fjh> s/profile/profile property/
15:51:12 <ArtB> MC: I'm OK with that proposal
15:52:57 <ArtB> FH: req #8 provides a motivation about the Expires property
15:53:08 <ArtB> MP: agree Expires property makes sense
15:53:35 <billyjackass> billyjackass has joined #wam
15:53:37 <fjh> issue of granularity of time stamps?
15:53:43 <ArtB> ... a concern I had is the text implies a short expiration period
15:53:54 <ArtB> ... but I agree with the overall intent
15:54:05 <billyjackass> Zakim, code?
15:54:05 <Zakim> the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), billyjackass
15:54:41 <Zakim> +??P41
15:54:54 <ArtB> Present+ Mike
15:55:06 <billyjackass> Zakim, P41 is me
15:55:06 <Zakim> sorry, billyjackass, I do not recognize a party named 'P41'
15:55:18 <billyjackass> Zakim, P41 is me
15:55:18 <Zakim> sorry, billyjackass, I do not recognize a party named 'P41'
15:55:25 <ArtB> FH: I think we need to continue discussion on req #8
15:55:26 <billyjackass> Zakim, ??P41 is me
15:55:26 <Zakim> +billyjackass; got it
15:55:36 <ArtB> ... could use something from Schema
15:56:02 <fjh> suggest we use xsd:dateTime but need clarification of processing rules around comparisons
15:56:31 <timeless> hello?
15:56:42 <ArtB> AB: any last comments about FH's original email?
15:56:51 <ArtB> [None]
15:57:13 <ArtB> Topic: Section 5. definitions
15:57:28 <ArtB> AB: who can help?
15:57:28 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
15:57:45 <ArtB> FH: I can help but it isn't a high priority
15:58:01 <ArtB> Topic: Section 9 and X509
15:58:11 <ArtB> FH: do we really need to define something here?
15:58:44 <ArtB> AB: agree we should reference existing work if possible
15:59:40 <fjh> MP: concern about interoperability related to optional features
15:59:45 <ArtB> MP: concerened about addressing some interop issues we've had in the mobile industry
15:59:49 <fjh> MP: both for OCSP and CRLs
15:59:59 <ArtB> ... we could ref some existing specs
16:00:12 <ArtB> ... not sure they meet all of our reqs
16:00:17 <Zakim> -billyjackass
16:00:38 <ArtB> ... Agree there is an open question on how much X509 processing we need to specify.
16:01:22 <timeless> q+
16:01:38 <fjh> q-
16:01:40 <fjh> q+
16:02:08 <ArtB> AB: Mark, you will provide input on OCSP and CRLs
16:02:14 <fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0038.html
16:02:20 <fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0039.html
16:02:36 <ArtB> AB: and contributors for 6.1 and 8?
16:02:50 <ArtB> FH: I sent a proposal for 6.1 to the list earlier today
16:03:22 <ArtB> FH: I made a proposal for section 8 too
16:03:36 <timeless> ack
16:04:06 <fjh> q-
16:04:09 <ArtB> JS: there is a protocol for helping sort out a chain if something is missing
16:04:16 <ArtB> ... Gecko has some new suport for this
16:05:45 <ArtB> Topic: P&C Last Call WD
16:06:00 <ArtB> AB: which WG do we want to request feedback?
16:06:16 <ArtB> MC: I18N WG
16:06:20 <ArtB> ... WAI P&F
16:06:37 <ArtB> ... MWBP 
16:06:44 <timeless> i think this is probably a related url, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4221005/4224052/04224150.pdf?arnumber=4224150
16:07:06 <ArtB> FH: XML Sec
16:08:07 <ArtB> .... the P&C should just point at the Widgets DigSig spec
16:08:39 <ArtB> MP: I think the P&C spec needs to address how to address handling more than one sig
16:08:57 <fjh> should point to Widgets DigSIg spec since it handles properties etc
16:09:12 <ArtB> Topic: AOB
16:09:17 <ArtB> AB: next call is Jan 15
16:09:25 <ArtB> ... FH regrets already sent
16:09:40 <ArtB> AB: quick poll on Paris f2f attendance
16:09:47 <ArtB> AB: any definites?
16:09:55 <ArtB> MP: yes
16:09:59 <anne> anne has left #wam
16:10:02 <ArtB> AB: yes
16:10:10 <ArtB> CV: most likely
16:10:26 <ArtB> MC: I don't know
16:10:37 <JereK> doubtful as of now
16:11:16 <ArtB> AB: meeting adjourned
16:11:21 <Zakim> -Mark
16:11:24 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
16:11:25 <Zakim> -Marcos
16:11:25 <Zakim> - +358.503.85aaaa
16:11:26 <Zakim> -fjh
16:11:30 <Zakim> -Claudio
16:11:39 <ArtB> RRSAgent, ent, make logs public
16:11:39 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'ent, make logs public', ArtB.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:11:46 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:11:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB
16:11:48 <Zakim> -Art_Barstow
16:11:49 <Zakim> IA_WebApps(Widgets)10:00AM has ended
16:11:51 <Zakim> Attendees were +358.503.85aaaa, +44.771.751.aabb, Art_Barstow, Mark, Claudio, fjh, Marcos, Shepazu, Mike, billyjackass, Josh_Soref
16:12:33 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:13:03 <ArtB> Present+ Josh
16:13:15 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:13:15 <JereK> JereK has left #wam
16:15:46 <ArtB> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:15:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-wam-minutes.html ArtB
16:16:19 <ArtB> zakim, bye
16:16:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wam
16:16:46 <ArtB> rrsagent, bye
16:16:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items