See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<Marcos> [IPcaller] jjjis
<Marcos> zaki, [IPcaller] is me
Date: 19 March 2009
AB: draft agenda published on
... Since then, Frederick proposed some agenda changes via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0831.html ; we will accept those that intersect the original agenda; add e.; skip the editorial points (f., g., h.)
... There is also a proposal by Marcos to add a new <option> element (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0816.html) that will be added to the agenda.
... Are there any other change requests?
Benoit: what about RSS?
AB: not today
David: what about the PAG?
AB: I have no new info about the PAG
MS: it is being set up; I am
responsible for setting it up; I have a draft charter
... will go to W3M soon if hasn't been done already
... hope to get the annoucement out RSN
... some logistics still be worked out
David: PP says AC reps need to get involved; would appreciate an update
MS: I don't have much more to add; nothing surprising; can look at the REX PAG for an example
David: we weren't members then
TLR: we will give plenty of advance notice
AB: any short announcements? I don't have any.
David: BONDI review period ends March 23
<drogersuk> http://bondi.omtp.org is the link for BONDI
<tlr> welcome back to a former co-chair of one of the previous incarnations of this wG
AB: Frederick mentioned his
change on March 18
... and added to the latest ED http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?
MC: I approve
AB: FH's proposal approved
AB: these issues are still open. Briefly, what is the plan to address them?
FH: want to add an Note that XML
Sec WG has not reached consensus on the algorithms for XML Sig
... I don't want to do anything rash here
... We need to get more feedback
AB: support your proposal for the note
<fjh> suggest to add editorial note along these lines:
David: we are discussing this in
... different companies have different opinions
... Want to know if an IP check has been made?
<fjh> The XML Security WG has not yet achieved consensus on required algorithms in XML SIgnature 1.1, in particular whether to mandate ECDSAwighSHA256
FH: WGs don't do patent
... but we have talked about it
... We have conflicting info
... The risk may not be too bad but I am Not a Lawyer
... We are certainly seeking feedback
... I also noted T-Mobile's comments on this
David: the concern is some
members have interest along the ell. curves
... but please be advised this could be a complicated area
... re IPR issues
<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.
TLR: we know their are Claims of
... I am not aware of any disclosures within the XML Sec WG
... We do not have knowledge of patents
... Some WG members want ell curves and some do not
... This is complicated area; we are trying to navigate the space with some incomplete data
David: the concern is some NON-members have interest
<fjh> thomas notes ability to do interop may impact whether elliptic curve becomes mandatory or not
David: just because W3C members have not declared interest doesn't mean non-members don't have concerns
<fjh> in other words, if sufficient participation in interop happens
AB: David, Thomas pelase enter your comments directly into the IRC
David: can't pretend there is no problem there
AB: what do you think we should do?
David: need to think what to do if there are patents
FH: don't think we can make progress on this on today's call
David: want a firm action
David: want XML Sec WG to pursue this
TLR: then you should join the XML Sec WG
David: how do I do that?
TLR: send your comment to the XML Sec WG's mail list
FH: need an email with specific comments
David: OMTP operators will submit
their own comments
... these minutes serve as a record
FH: these minutes won't help that
... an e-mail to XML Sec WG wold be best
TLR: if OMTP members send the comments to public-webapps that might be good enough
<drogersuk> OK, no problem - as minuted the OMTP members have been asked to individually respond
FH: emails are much easier for me to communicate with my WG than minutes
<tlr> drogersuk, I don't think you're disagreeing with what's actually going on
<drogersuk> exactly :-)
FH: I propose the text I suggested earlier
David: I agree
AB: any objections to FH's earlier proposed text?
[ None ]
AB: Frederick posted a proposal
on March 18 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0827.html)
... any concerns or objections with FH's proposal or can we approve it as is?
FH: this is pretty straight
... I've done some rewording
AB: any comments, concerns?
AB: we can consider this proposal approved
AB: Frederick made a proposal re checking the validity of relative paths in a signature http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0824.html
AB: Thomas then responded with a
question about the "interaction" between FH's proposal and
TLR's "and a manifest approach for URI dereferencing".
... let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns? let's start with FH's proposal - any comments or concerns?
<tlr> (postponing that question is what I was about to suggest)
FH: I added an additional
... I think the intent before was implied but this is now explicit
... Marcos helped me with this
AB: any objections to approving FH's proposal?
[ None ]
AB: consider this approved
... TLR, what about the interaction issue?
TLR: agree we should defer to
... need to decide the URI issue separately
... but wanted to make it clear we need to make a decision
FH: we may need to do some
tweaking with the References
... e.g. flesh out the constraints
TLR: agree; but must first decide on derefencing URI model
<fjh> but this would be very localized within widget signature spec
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?
FH: I think I have addressed all
of the comments on the list
... If I missed anything, please speak up
... I am ready for a new WD
MC: after FH makes his changes I have a few minor Editorial changes to make
FH: can you do the publrules?
AB: any objections to a new WD?
FH: what needs to be done?
AB: you and MC make your changes; telll me and I'll submit the pub req
RESOLUTION: after FH incorporates the latest agreements, we will publish a new WD of the Widgets DigSig spec
AB: On March 9, Marcos proposed
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
... Marcos, where do we stand on this?
MC: I'd like to hear others
RB: my only objection was lack of
... but Mark indicates it would help with localization
MC: do you support the localization model proposed by Mark?
RB: yes; may need some tweaking
MC: but that would be significant
... that new model changes a lot of stuff in the P&C spec
RB: there were some other issues with the loc model
MC: think this is over engineering
RB: since Mark just sent this email may want some more review time
MC: Mark's proposal says must
identify which elements and attrs can be localized
... the model for the UA becomes more complicated
AB: can we separate these two issues?
MC: agree it should be mandatory
RB: it should mandatory if there is a good reasons
TLR: should be mandatory if good reasons and l10n and uri deref are good reasons
BS: should it be mandatory?
RB: I can live with it
AB: are there any objections to the config file being mandatory?
RESOLUTION: the config file will be Mandatory
BS: need to work on the l10n
... appears Mark's proposal will address the issue
AB: let's followup on the mail list re Mark's proposal and drop the discussion today
BS: where is the complexity Marcos?
MC: implementing and authoring
BS: think it helps with implementing
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.
... let's start with the proposal. Marcos, briefly what are you proposing and does Opera consider it a show stopper for v1?
MC: we need a way to parameterize
... can use a URI scheme
... another way is more author friendly using name/value attribute pairs
... Arve gave a better example
RB: I think this is a good feature but not sure it is essential
AB: so is this a show stopper for v1?
MC: yes, I think we need it
... but I don't think it is super complicated
AB: so it is important but not criticial enough to block P&C?
MC: yes, that basically true
AB: during the Paris f2f meeting
we agreed to publish a new LC WD in March (http://www.w3.org/2009/02/26-wam-minutes.html#item06).
Another issue is that the comment tracking document for LC #1
... let's start with "what must be done before LC #2 can be published?"
MC: #1 - the l10n model
... need to factor in Jere's model; we've had some discussions
... currently this is a show stopper
... #2 - need to specify <options> if we are going to specify that
... #3 <access> - hard and significant
... #4 - <update> element is in flux because of the related patent
RB: what about URI dereferecing?
MC: that does not affect the P&C spec
MC; #5 - step 3 - the new l10n model affects this
scribe: #6 - step 5 - affected by
l10n changes and other things
... #7 - step 7 - need to add <preference> element and the <screenshot> element
MC: if we add Mark's proposal,
just about every part of step #7 would need to change
... I removed the nested feature element for v1
... #8 - update the RelaxNG schema
... also need to address one last LC #1 comment
AB: who can volunteer to help with these?
RB: what specific items do you seek help Marcos?
MC: I'll take help on any of these
RB: I'll take feature and screenshot
AB: thanks Robin
RB: the schema work can be done in CR
<Bryan> dropping off now
<darobin> ACTION: RB to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - RB
<darobin> ACTION: Robin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Robin
<darobin> ACTION: darobin to handle <feature> and <screenshot> for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin
<darobin> RESOLUTION: we are feature complete
<drogersuk> Let me take this back to OMTP first
<darobin> AB: anyone obejct to not taking in any new features?
<darobin> DR: want to check with OMTP that feature-freeze is okay
<darobin> AB: okay
<darobin> AB: Marcos, what's the time frame?
<darobin> AB: end of the month
<darobin> AB: thanks a lot
<darobin> AB: will look into extending this to 90min
<darobin> TR: what's the time for this call? we're in DST confusion week
<darobin> AB: the frame of reference is 0900 W3C Time (formerly known as Boston time)
<darobin> a pleasure ArtB :)
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/should be/might be/ Found ScribeNick: ArtB Found Scribe: Art Present: Art Frederick Dan Andy Andrew David Mike Thomas Bryan Marcos Arve Benoit Robin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0815.html Found Date: 19 Mar 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-wam-minutes.html People with action items: darobin rb robin[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]