See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
Date: 5 March 2009
<fjh> widgets signature editors draft update
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
AB: agenda posted March 4 - is
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html
... the main agenda items are Open Issues. I only want to spend
a few minutes on each of them to get a sense of where we are
e.g. still Open, pending inputs, can be Closed. Any detailed
technical discussions should occur on public-webapps mail
list.
... Are there any change requests?
[ None ]
AB: I don't have any urgent
announcements
... what about others?
FH: please submit comments on XML Sig 1.1 drafts
DR: I will respond to Art's BONDI 1.0 email so please look at that
<fjh> please review XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties FPWD
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item25
MC: I uploaded the Window Modes spec; would like to get that on the agenda
AB: earlier this week Frederick asked me if the DigSig + P&C specs are now in synch, based on last week's discussions?
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
AB: I believe the answer is
yes.
... where are we on this?
MC: FH and I talked about
this
... I think this is mostly now addressed
... P&C has no real depedency on DigSig
<fjh> marcos notes merged steps 4 +5, moved locating to dig sig, removed signature variable from p + c
MC: I haven't completed the
P&C changes yet
... e.g. renumber some steps
<fjh> fjh notes revised text on locating to fit it within digsig but essence is same
FH: I had to revise the location
text a bit but the logic is the same
... Josh asked about the sorting
... I need to think about that a bit more
JS: need to clarify diff between
"9" and "009"
... we can take this discussion to the list
FH: I agree we need more rigor here
MC: I agree too
... need to address case sensitivity too
AB: can we point to some existing work?
FH: I don't think this is a big issue and agree we can discuss on the list
AB: what needs to be done then?
FH: I need to make a few changes to DigSig and MC needs to do a bit more on P&C
JS: re styling, orange doesn't work well for me regarding readability
MC: I can help with that
FH: I'll take a pass at that
DR: re the ell curve issue, I have asked OMTP to provide comments by March 9 so I should have data for the WG by Mar 12
AB: do we now consider this issue
adequately addressed to close it?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/19>
... my gut feel here is this is now addressed and we can close
it.
... any comments?
MC: the DigSig enumerates reqs it
addresses
... it's a bit out of sync
... we need to sync the Reqs doc with the DigSig spec re the
reqs
... so I think we can close it
AB: any other comments?
FH: not sure how much synching we
need to do on the reqs
... I do think we can close this issue
RESOLUTION: we close Issue #19 as the spec now adresses the original concerns
AB: are there still some pending
actions and input needed?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/80>
... what is the plan for the next couple of weeks?
MC: I added a new example to the
latest ED
... I still have some additional work on the model
... I talked with JS earlier today
... I'm still uneasy re the fwd slash "/"
... we must maintain the semantics of URI
... Need to understand if we can do it without the leading
/
... and to still have the fallback model
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#fallback-behavior-example
AB: note there are related
actions 298 and 299
... are there other inputs you need?
MC: by the end of the day I hope to have something to share with Jere and Josh
JK: I will review it later and send comments
AB: we need not just Editors but technical contributors too
DR: it would be helpful if MC could identify areas where Bryan can help
AB: any other comments on
#80?
... we will leave that open for now
AB: What, if anything, should be
done?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82>
MC: re last Topic, Jere, please consider XML Base when you review the new inputs
JK: yes, good point and that should be reflected in the spec
MC: this can be conceived of as a virtual file system at the conceptual level
JK: don't want the spec to specify a file system
MC: agree; I was just using that as part of my mental model
<JereK> I thought it was just shuffling URLs also in impl
AB: re #82 was not discussed in
Paris
... what are people thinking?
MC: I think we can close this since we are using a separate namespace
Arve: agree
AB: other comments?
... I completely agree
<timeless> "namespaces will save us ;-)"
AB: propose we close this with a
resolution of "we address this by defining our own
namespace"
... any objections to this proposal?
<JereK> or "believe in namespaces or not" :)
RESOLUTION: close Issue #82 - we address by defining our own namespace
AB: What is the status of this
issue and is this against P&C spec of DigSig spec?
... <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/83>
... did you create this Marcos?
MC: yes. It was raised by Mark
FH: this issues identifies an potential attack
AB: is this something we must address in v1?
MC: yes. Need a 1-liner in the DigSig spec
FH: I don't quite understand the issue though
MC: me neither
FH: we already have some security
consids
... I recommend we get some more information from Mark
AB: so we need to get more info from Mark?
MC: yes
FH: I don't understand the real threat scenario
MC: me neither
JS: same with me
FH: I suggest this be closed unless we have new information and ask Mark to provide more information
DR: or could leave it open until Mark responds
AB: we'll leave it open for now and I'll take an action to ping Mark for more information on the threat scenario
<scribe> ACTION: Barstow ask Mark to provide more information about the real threat scenario re Issue #83 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#action01]
AB: Thomas submitted some
comments against Req #37 and I don't believe we have yet
responded
... <http://www.w3.org/mid/9DD110C1-D860-40C9-B688-2E08F4D86D20@w3.org>
... perhaps we should take the discussion to public-webapps and
drop it from today's agenda. OK?
... any comments?
AB: last week we created about 20
Actions and about 15 are still open.
... To continue to make good progress on our specs we need to
address these actions ASAP
... Please review the actions and address any assigned to
you.
... Also do indeed feel free to submit inputs to address
others' actions
... Widget Actions are: <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8>
... Let me know if you want agenda time for any of these
Actions
AB: re location, we now have
three proposals: Oslo/Opera, Edinburgh/OMTP and
London/Vodafone. That's certainly sufficient to close the call
for hosts.
... re the dates, June 2-4 are preferable.
... it will of course be impossible to satisfy everyone's #1
priority
DR: June 2-4 conflicts with OMTP meeting
AB: we should also be as Green as we can as well as to try to minimize travel costs and simplify logistics for everyone, including those attending from other continents
<fjh> that first week of june is not good for me
AB: are there any other conflicts
with June 2-4?
... are there any conflicts with June 9-11?
<abraun> there are always places in North America. I can think of one place with lots of hotels ;)
DR: not from OMTP's side
MC: that's OK with Opera
AB: anyone else
... it looks like June 9-11 then is best
... any comments about the location?
<timeless> abraun: there's already SJ later in the year
<timeless> so i think the us is out for this meeting
DR: We are happy to cede with
Dan's offer to host in London
... I think London is probably the most cost effective
JS: housing in London can be very
expensive
... I assume Edinburgh would be cheaper
... I expect to pay for this trip out of my own pocket
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
Arve: lodging in London is not cheaper than Oslo
DR: London is an inexpensive hub
to get to
... i think airfare costs will dominate the overall cost of
travel
MC: we can live with London
... but want to host the next meeting
AB: any other comments?
JS: I need to check another calendar
AB: I will make a decision in a
week or so
... the leading candidate is London June 9-11
JS: I just checked, no conflicts that week
AB: Charles asked everyone to
submit comments about the W3C's proposed TPAC meeting in
November
... see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0044.html>
... I think the general consensus is: a) it's too early to make
a firm commitment; b) we support the idea of an all-WG meeting;
c) if there are sufficient topics to discuss then we should
meet that week.
... Does that seem like a fair characterization? Does anyone
have any other comments?
<Marcos> ?
<arve> did everyone, or just us get dropped from the call?
<timeless> just you
<arve> our call appears to be up, but we can't hear
AB: Charles and I need to report
to the Team by the end of next week
... again that November TPAC meetingn is in Silicon Valley
JS: if Moz has a meeting I can piggy-back then that would increase my probability of attending
FH: XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue
AB: I think the most we can report to the Team is "Yes, we tenatively have agreement to meet during TPAC"
<Marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html
AB: this is Excellent Marcos!
MC: give the credit to Arve :)
AB: so this captures last week's strawman?
MC: yes
Arve: it also includes some interfaces
MC: the APIs will be moved to the
A&E spec
... it will only contain the defn of the modes and the Media
Queries
BS: this is a good start
AB: anything else on this topic Marcos?
MC: we will work on this over the next few weeks and get it ready for a FPWD
AB: so a FPWD in the beginning of April?
MC: yes, that would be ideal
DR: I asked OMTP members if they
can contribute
... we have an offer from Bryan and ATT
... they want to know specifics
AB: that's a good idea
... I want to first talk to the editors
DR: OK. I will also see if I can get more support
AB: any other comments on this topic?
DR: I just responded to Art's
BONDI Release Candidate e-mail
... we have extended the comment period to March 23
... the comments should all be public
JS: I tried to submit feedback
and I ran into problems with OMTP's web site
... it would be really good if the comments could be sent to a
mail list
DR: if you send me the comments that would be good
JS: OK; will do but not this week
AB: is the URI of the public comment archive available?
DR: yes Nick sent it to
public-webapps
... depending on the comments we will determine our next
step
... the next OMTP meeting is the following week
AB: thanks for the update
David
... anythign else?
... Meeting Adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/FHI/FH/ Succeeded: s/Marcoss/Mark/ Succeeded: s/would close this/suggest this be closed unless we have new information/ Succeeded: s/we are tentatively meeting that week Wend to Friday/XML Security is tentatively planning to meet at TPAC on Thursday Friday, so to avoid overlap can Widgets meet Mon and Tue/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Frederick Josh Jere Marcos Arve David Benoit Regrets: Claudio Bryan Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0622.html Found Date: 05 Mar 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html People with action items: ask barstow mark[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]