IRC log of wam on 2009-03-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:00:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wam
13:00:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:00:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.536.aaaa
13:01:02 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make log Public
13:01:14 [Zakim]
13:01:16 [ArtB]
ScribeNick: ArtB
13:01:19 [ArtB]
Scribe: Art
13:01:23 [ArtB]
Chair: Art
13:01:56 [Zakim]
13:02:05 [ArtB]
Present: Art, Frederick, Dan, Andy,
13:02:10 [abraun]
abraun has joined #wam
13:02:19 [ArtB]
Present+ Andrew
13:02:20 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, call Mike-Mobile
13:02:25 [Zakim]
ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
13:02:26 [Marcos]
[IPcaller] jjjis
13:02:27 [Zakim]
13:02:28 [Marcos]
13:02:33 [ArtB]
Present+ David
13:02:39 [Marcos]
zaki, [IPcaller] is me
13:02:43 [Marcos]
13:02:46 [Marcos]
13:02:46 [ArtB]
Present+ Mike
13:02:58 [ArtB]
13:03:03 [ArtB]
Date: 19 March 2009
13:03:11 [Zakim]
13:03:13 [ArtB]
Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference
13:03:17 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
13:03:19 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:03:22 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
13:03:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
13:03:23 [Zakim]
13:03:27 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
13:03:29 [Marcos_]
Marcos_ has joined #wam
13:03:30 [Zakim]
13:03:33 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:03:36 [ArtB]
Present+ Thomas
13:03:44 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
13:03:44 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
13:03:46 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
13:03:46 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
13:04:20 [Zakim]
13:04:25 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #wam
13:04:28 [ArtB]
Present+ Bryan
13:04:37 [Zakim]
13:04:46 [ArtB]
Present+ Marcos
13:04:49 [ArtB]
Present+ Arve
13:04:59 [ArtB]
Topic: Review and tweak agenda
13:05:04 [ArtB]
AB: draft agenda published on March 18:
13:05:11 [ArtB]
... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda; add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.)
13:05:16 [Zakim]
+ +45.29.aabb
13:05:16 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
13:05:23 [ArtB]
Present+ Benoit
13:05:31 [arve]
Zakim, who is here?
13:05:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, DKA, ??P19, +1.919.536.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Mike, Thomas (muted), ??P0, Bryan_Sullivan, Marcos/Arve, +45.29.aabb
13:05:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see arve, Bryan, Marcos_, abraun, RRSAgent, drogersuk, DKA, Zakim, fjh, MikeSmith, heycam, ArtB, tlr, shepazu, Marcos, anne, trackbot, timelyx
13:05:41 [ArtB]
... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option> element ( that will be added to the agenda.
13:05:54 [ArtB]
... Are there any other change requests?
13:06:01 [ArtB]
13:06:26 [ArtB]
Benoit: what about RSS?
13:06:29 [ArtB]
AB: not today
13:06:43 [ArtB]
David: what about the PAG?
13:06:49 [MikeSmith]
q+ to talk about PAG
13:06:51 [ArtB]
AB: I have no new info about the PAG
13:07:15 [ArtB]
MS: it is being set up; I am responsible for setting it up; I have a draft charter
13:07:30 [ArtB]
... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already
13:07:53 [ArtB]
... hope to get the annoucement out RSN
13:08:16 [ArtB]
... some logistics still be worked out
13:08:42 [ArtB]
David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an update
13:08:54 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
13:08:54 [Zakim]
Thomas should no longer be muted
13:09:09 [ArtB]
MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at the REX PAG for an example
13:09:19 [ArtB]
David: we weren't members then
13:09:25 [Zakim]
13:09:56 [ArtB]
TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice
13:10:00 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
13:10:00 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
13:10:02 [darobin]
darobin has joined #wam
13:10:03 [ArtB]
Topic: Announcements
13:10:09 [ArtB]
AB: any short announcements? I don't have any.
13:10:25 [darobin]
Zakim, who's here?
13:10:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fjh, DKA, ??P19, +1.919.536.aaaa, Art_Barstow, Mike, Thomas (muted), ??P0, Bryan_Sullivan (muted), Marcos/Arve, +45.29.aabb, ??P6
13:10:27 [ArtB]
David: BONDI review period ends March 23
13:10:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see darobin, Bryan, Marcos_, abraun, RRSAgent, drogersuk, DKA, Zakim, fjh, MikeSmith, heycam, ArtB, tlr, shepazu, anne, trackbot, timelyx
13:10:41 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig: no longer require the first signature to be processed
13:10:51 [drogersuk] is the link for BONDI
13:11:08 [tlr]
welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous incarnations of this wG
13:11:09 [ArtB]
Present+ Robin
13:11:27 [ArtB]
AB: Frederick mentioned his change on March 18
13:11:29 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, mute Mike
13:11:29 [Zakim]
Mike should now be muted
13:11:37 [ArtB]
... and added to the latest ED
13:11:47 [ArtB]
AB: any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?
13:11:55 [fjh]
13:12:00 [ArtB]
MC: I approve
13:12:15 [ArtB]
AB: FH's proposal approved
13:12:29 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig: Remove DSAwithSHA1 requirement? Status of requirement R47 (Section 2)?
13:12:37 [fjh]
13:12:49 [ArtB]
AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to address them?
13:13:14 [MikeSmith]
13:13:43 [ArtB]
FH: want to add an Note that XML Sec WG has not reached consensus on the algorithms for XML Sig 1.1
13:14:01 [drogersuk]
13:14:04 [ArtB]
... I don't want to do anything rash here
13:14:17 [ArtB]
... We need to get more feedback
13:15:03 [ArtB]
AB: support your proposal for the note
13:15:04 [fjh]
suggest to add editorial note along these lines:
13:15:20 [ArtB]
David: we are discussing this in OMTP
13:15:31 [ArtB]
... different companies have different opinions
13:15:42 [ArtB]
... Want to know if an IP check has been made?
13:15:51 [fjh]
The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on required algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate ECDSAwighSHA256
13:15:53 [ArtB]
FH: WGs don't do patent checks
13:16:04 [ArtB]
... but we have talked about it
13:16:06 [tlr]
13:16:10 [ArtB]
... We have conflicting info
13:16:24 [ArtB]
... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer
13:16:38 [ArtB]
... We are certainly seeking feedback
13:16:54 [ArtB]
... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this
13:17:29 [ArtB]
David: the concern is some members have interest along the ell. curves
13:17:41 [ArtB]
... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
13:17:43 [asledd]
asledd has joined #wam
13:17:48 [ArtB]
... re IPR issues
13:17:53 [tlr]
ack t
13:18:00 [fjh]
continued editors note text - The XML Security WG is requesting feedback on their FPWD of XML SIgnature 1.1 and feedback for algorithms related to Widget Signature is also requested.
13:18:09 [ArtB]
TLR: we know their are Claims of IPR issues
13:18:21 [ArtB]
... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG
13:18:29 [drogersuk]
13:18:36 [fjh]
13:18:40 [ArtB]
... We do not have knowledge of patents
13:18:57 [ArtB]
... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not
13:19:40 [ArtB]
... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space with some incomplete data
13:20:08 [ArtB]
David: the concern is some NON-members have interest
13:20:14 [fjh]
thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether elliptic curve becomes mandatory or not
13:20:41 [ArtB]
... just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't mean non-members don't have concerns
13:20:45 [fjh]
in other words, if sufficient participation in interop happens
13:20:54 [fjh]
13:21:09 [ArtB]
AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC
13:21:25 [ArtB]
David: can't pretend there is no problem there
13:21:33 [ArtB]
AB: what do you think we should do?
13:21:46 [ArtB]
David: need to think what to do if there are patents
13:22:00 [ArtB]
FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call
13:22:12 [ArtB]
David: want a firm action
13:22:18 [ArtB]
AB: proposal?
13:22:27 [ArtB]
David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this
13:22:39 [ArtB]
TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG
13:22:45 [ArtB]
David: how do I do that?
13:22:58 [ArtB]
TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list
13:23:22 [ArtB]
FH: need an email with specific comments
13:23:58 [arve]
arve has joined #wam
13:24:00 [ArtB]
David: OMTP operators will submit their own comments
13:24:18 [ArtB]
... these minutes serve as a record
13:24:26 [ArtB]
FH: these minutes won't help that much
13:24:28 [tlr]
13:24:38 [drogersuk]
13:24:43 [ArtB]
... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best
13:25:03 [ArtB]
TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that should be good enough
13:25:15 [tlr]
s/should be/might be/
13:25:21 [drogersuk]
OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been asked to individually respond
13:25:25 [ArtB]
FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than minutes
13:25:36 [tlr]
drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's actually going on
13:25:47 [drogersuk]
exactly :-)
13:26:02 [ArtB]
... I propose the text I suggested earlier
13:26:05 [ArtB]
David: I agree
13:26:20 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text?
13:26:28 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:26:41 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig: Suggest removing the restatement of algorithm requirements in section 7.1, specifically remove #5a and #5b.
13:26:55 [fjh]
13:27:00 [ArtB]
AB: Frederick posted a proposal on March 18 (
13:27:07 [ArtB]
AB: any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?
13:27:47 [ArtB]
FH: this is pretty straight forward
13:28:09 [Zakim]
- +1.919.536.aaaa
13:28:09 [ArtB]
... I've done some rewording
13:28:43 [ArtB]
AB: any comments, concerns?
13:28:46 [ArtB]
[ None]
13:28:58 [ArtB]
AB: we can consider this proposal approved
13:29:07 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig: reference widgets packaging zip relative path
13:29:20 [ArtB]
AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative paths in a signature
13:29:24 [fjh]
13:29:29 [ArtB]
... Thomas then responded with a question about the "interaction" between FH's proposal and TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI dereferencing".
13:29:37 [tlr]
13:29:39 [fjh]
13:29:59 [ArtB]
AB: let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?
13:30:07 [tlr]
13:30:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.536.aacc
13:30:28 [tlr]
(postponing that question is what I was about to suggest)
13:30:45 [ArtB]
FH: I added an additional constraint
13:31:15 [ArtB]
... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit
13:31:30 [ArtB]
... Marcos helped me with this
13:31:47 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal?
13:31:52 [ArtB]
[ None ]
13:31:58 [ArtB]
AB: consider this approved
13:32:29 [fjh]
13:32:31 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
13:32:31 [Zakim]
Thomas was not muted, tlr
13:32:37 [fjh]
13:32:43 [fjh]
13:33:11 [ArtB]
AB: TLR, what about the interaction issue?
13:33:22 [ArtB]
TLR: agree we should defer to mail list
13:33:40 [ArtB]
... need to decide the URI issue separately
13:33:51 [ArtB]
... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision
13:34:16 [ArtB]
FH: we may need to do some tweaking with the References
13:34:31 [ArtB]
... e.g. flesh out the constraints
13:34:50 [ArtB]
TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model
13:35:21 [ArtB]
Topic: DigSig: Are we ready to approve the publication of a new WD?
13:35:22 [fjh]
but this would be very localized within widget signature spec
13:35:24 [fjh]
13:35:38 [ArtB]
AB: the last time we published the DigSig spec was April 2008. Since then, we have made significant changes and improvements. It may not be perfect yet but I propose a new WD be published next week. Comments?
13:36:01 [fjh]
13:36:22 [ArtB]
FH: I think I have addressed all of the comments on the list
13:36:23 [marcos]
13:36:39 [ArtB]
... If I missed anything, please speak up
13:37:01 [ArtB]
... I am ready for a new WD
13:37:33 [ArtB]
MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial changes to make
13:37:44 [ArtB]
FH: can you do the publrules?
13:37:52 [ArtB]
MC: yes
13:37:59 [ArtB]
AB: any objections to a new WD?
13:38:21 [ArtB]
FH: what needs to be done?
13:38:54 [ArtB]
AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub req
13:39:07 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec
13:39:17 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: should the config file be mandatory?
13:39:43 [ArtB]
AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed via that the config file be mandatory. We had a short discussion about this during our March 12 VC but came to no resolution ( Let's take a few minutes and try to get a resolution on this question.
13:40:24 [ArtB]
AB: Marcos, where do we stand on this?
13:40:30 [ArtB]
MC: I'd like to hear others
13:40:48 [ArtB]
RB: my only objection was lack of use cases
13:41:05 [ArtB]
... but Mark indicates it would help with localization
13:41:18 [ArtB]
MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark?
13:41:25 [ArtB]
RB: yes; may need some tweaking
13:41:33 [ArtB]
MC: but that would be significant changes
13:41:53 [ArtB]
... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec
13:42:12 [ArtB]
RB: there were some other issues with the loc model
13:42:22 [ArtB]
MC: think this is over engineering
13:42:43 [ArtB]
RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time
13:43:17 [ArtB]
MC: Mark's proposal says must identify which elements and attrs can be localized
13:43:41 [ArtB]
... the model for the UA becomes more complicated
13:44:29 [ArtB]
AB: can we separate these two issues?
13:44:37 [ArtB]
MC: agree it should be mandatory
13:44:47 [ArtB]
RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons
13:45:09 [ArtB]
TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref are good reasons
13:45:26 [ArtB]
BS: should it be mandatory?
13:45:30 [ArtB]
RB: I can live with it
13:45:45 [ArtB]
AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory?
13:45:49 [ArtB]
[ None]
13:45:56 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #wam
13:46:11 [ArtB]
RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory
13:46:54 [ArtB]
BS: need to work on the l10n model
13:47:07 [ArtB]
... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue
13:47:32 [ArtB]
AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop the discussion today
13:47:43 [ArtB]
BS: where is the complexity Marcos?
13:47:53 [ArtB]
MC: implementing and authoring
13:48:09 [ArtB]
BS: think it helps with implementing
13:48:17 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C: <option>s on <feature>s
13:49:08 [ArtB]
AB: on March 18 Marcos proposed a new <option> element This resulted in some interesting discussion including the issue "Are We Done Yet?" i.e. should we take on new features when the spec is already in Last Call. Since Marcos and I had a related discussion in IRC yesterday, it isn't surprising that others were asking the same question.
13:49:31 [ArtB]
AB: let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1?
13:49:50 [ArtB]
MC: we need a way to parameterize features
13:49:58 [ArtB]
... can use a URI scheme
13:50:22 [ArtB]
... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute pairs
13:50:30 [ArtB]
.... Arve gave a better example
13:51:04 [ArtB]
RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential
13:51:24 [ArtB]
AB: so is this a show stopper for v1?
13:51:35 [ArtB]
MC: yes, I think we need it
13:51:45 [ArtB]
... but I don't think it is super complicated
13:52:56 [ArtB]
AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C?
13:53:03 [ArtB]
MC: yes, that basically true
13:53:20 [ArtB]
Topic: P&C spec: status of P&C LC comment handling; next steps
13:53:47 [ArtB]
AB: during the Paris f2f meeting we agreed to publish a new LC WD in March ( Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1 is empty:
13:54:10 [ArtB]
AB: let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be published?"
13:55:06 [ArtB]
MC: #1 - the l10n model
13:55:22 [ArtB]
... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions
13:55:44 [ArtB]
... currently this is a show stopper
13:56:05 [ArtB]
... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that
13:56:25 [ArtB]
... #3 <access> - hard and significant
13:56:53 [ArtB]
... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent
13:57:04 [ArtB]
RB: what about URI dereferecing?
13:57:11 [ArtB]
MC: that does not affect the P&C spec
13:57:33 [ArtB]
MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this
13:58:07 [ArtB]
... #6 - step 5 - affected by l10n changes and other things
13:58:41 [ArtB]
... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the <screenshot> element
13:58:56 [ArtB]
MC: if we add Mark's proposal, just about every part of step #7 would need to change
14:00:11 [ArtB]
MC: I removed the nested feature element for v1
14:01:01 [ArtB]
MC: #8 - update the RelaxNG schema
14:01:16 [ArtB]
MC: also need to address one last LC #1 comment
14:01:49 [ArtB]
AB: who can volunteer to help with these?
14:02:03 [ArtB]
RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos?
14:02:09 [ArtB]
MC: I'll take help on any of these
14:02:37 [ArtB]
RB: I'll take feature and screenshot
14:02:46 [ArtB]
AB: thanks Robin
14:03:01 [ArtB]
RB: the schema work can be done in CR
14:03:16 [Bryan]
dropping off now
14:03:21 [Zakim]
14:03:38 [darobin]
ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week
14:03:38 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - RB
14:03:44 [darobin]
ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week
14:03:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin
14:04:06 [darobin]
ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week
14:04:06 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin
14:04:36 [darobin]
RESOLUTION: we are feature complete
14:05:05 [drogersuk]
Let me take this back to OMTP first
14:05:13 [darobin]
AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features?
14:05:13 [marcos]
zakim, who is making noise?
14:05:24 [Zakim]
marcos, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Marcos/Arve (5%), Art_Barstow (19%)
14:06:13 [darobin]
DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay
14:06:27 [darobin]
AB: okay
14:06:37 [darobin]
AB: Marcos, what's the time frame?
14:06:56 [darobin]
AB: end of the month
14:07:16 [Zakim]
- +1.919.536.aacc
14:07:18 [darobin]
AB: thanks a lot
14:07:29 [darobin]
AB: will look into extending this to 90min
14:07:29 [tlr]
ack t
14:07:32 [darobin]
14:07:35 [Zakim]
14:07:56 [darobin]
TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST confusion week
14:08:04 [DKA]
14:08:23 [darobin]
AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly known as Boston time)
14:08:26 [Zakim]
14:08:47 [Zakim]
14:09:21 [Zakim]
14:09:27 [Zakim]
14:09:28 [Zakim]
- +45.29.aabb
14:09:30 [Zakim]
14:09:34 [Zakim]
14:09:42 [Zakim]
14:10:14 [darobin]
a pleasure ArtB :)
14:10:20 [drogersuk]
drogersuk has left #wam
14:11:58 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:11:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
14:12:25 [ArtB]
zakim, bye
14:12:25 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were DKA, fjh, +1.919.536.aaaa, Art_Barstow, [IPcaller], Mike, Thomas, Bryan_Sullivan, Marcos/Arve, +45.29.aabb, +1.919.536.aacc
14:12:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wam
14:16:15 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, bye
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [1]
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [2]
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [3]
14:16:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in