12:59:22 RRSAgent has joined #wam 12:59:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc 12:59:24 drogersuk has joined #wam 12:59:32 rrsagent, make log public 12:59:40 +Art_Barstow 12:59:45 Scribe: ArtB 12:59:53 ScribeNick: ArtB 12:59:54 Chair: Art 13:00:12 Marcos_ has joined #wam 13:00:19 Meeting: Widgets Voice Conference 13:00:25 Date: 2 April 2009 13:00:37 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0006.html 13:01:00 Present: Art, Frederick 13:01:04 Regrets: Robin 13:01:11 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:01:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:01:15 Zakim, call Keio-617 13:01:15 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 13:01:17 +Keio 13:01:47 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:02:00 Present+ Mike 13:02:02 mpriestl has joined #wam 13:02:10 +Marcos/Arve 13:02:12 arve has joined #wam 13:02:18 Present+ Marcos, Arve 13:02:18 Zakim, who is here? 13:02:18 On the phone I see fjh, Art_Barstow, Keio, Marcos/Arve 13:02:19 On IRC I see arve, mpriestl, Marcos_, drogersuk, RRSAgent, Zakim, ArtB, fjh, shepazu, heycam, MikeSmith, anne, timelyx, trackbot 13:02:45 RRSAgent, make minutes 13:02:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB 13:03:03 + +1.919.536.aaaa 13:03:09 Present+ Andy 13:03:23 Topic: Review and tweak agenda 13:03:29 AB: draft agenda posted on April 1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0006.html 13:03:38 ... Any change requests? 13:03:59 FH: re DigSig want to add some items 13:04:01 AB: OK 13:04:12 AB: any other change requests? 13:04:14 [ None ] 13:04:19 Topic: Announcements 13:04:26 AB: DigSig WD published on March 31. Good work Frederick, Marcos, Mark and the rest of you! 13:04:35 abraun has joined #wam 13:04:43 AB: any other short announcements? 13:04:48 [ None ] 13:04:55 Topic: Widget publication plan for 2Q-09: 13:05:02 +??P8 13:05:18 Present+ David 13:05:24 AB: I attended the March 30 BONDI Steering Group meeting and provided a short summary of my expectations for our publishing plans for the rest of 2Q-09. Yesterday I sent that plan to the public mail list (and no, it wasn't an "April Fool's" joke). See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0005.html 13:05:34 {can't join conference bridge... trying again) 13:06:01 Present+ Mark 13:06:06 AB: any general comments on that plan? My preference regarding issues for a specific spec, is to defer detailed discussion until we get to the appropriate place in the agenda. 13:06:07 q+ 13:07:01 FH: general concern about the excellerated schedule for DigSig 13:07:04 abraun has joined #wam 13:07:16 ... mandatory algorithms can take more than one month 13:07:23 ... need to some consistency 13:07:35 ... Do algorithms need to be frozen before LC? 13:08:06 (sorry can I check that the following are correct +1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1")) 13:08:14 AB: good questions. How about you, me, Mike and Thomas take this offline and talk about scenarios 13:08:15 Zakim, passcode 13:08:15 I don't understand 'passcode', Marcos_ 13:08:27 Zakim, what's the passcode 13:08:27 I don't understand 'what's the passcode', marcos 13:08:34 FH: the concern is that XML Sec WG may not agree with our schedule 13:08:37 akim, what's the passcode? 13:08:49 zakim, what is the passcode? 13:08:49 the conference code is 9231 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), marcos 13:09:03 FH: do you agree this is an excellerated schedule? 13:09:09 mpriestl: ^^^ 13:09:40 ... they may have a real issue with us doing this so fast re algorithms 13:10:01 + +0771751aabb 13:10:03 ... the decision will depend on implementations 13:10:23 ... we don't know resource commitments yet 13:10:32 (success! thanks Marcos) 13:11:52 A concern with the proposed last call schedule is that we may not have a final decision on mandatory algorithms in time. 13:12:12 AB: re excellerated, we could debate that. Again, I think we should take this offline and talk about the various scenarios 13:12:14 The reason for this is that this decision will depend in part on the ability of stakeholders to implement the algorithms that are required. 13:12:30 This knowledge will require some to allocate resources to determine what is involved. 13:12:34 This will take some time. 13:12:56 The XML Security WG is working on this but I doubt will have this information very quickly since it is a decision that requires more information. 13:13:14 It would help to accelerate this decision making process if members of the Web Applications Working Group 13:13:31 who sent comments and feedback regarding algorithms, such as Elliptic Curve, to send those comments directly 13:13:39 to the XML Security WG comments list at 13:13:51 ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April 13:13:51 Created ACTION-327 - Work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09]. 13:14:03 public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org 13:14:08 MC: did we reach consensus on ECC? 13:14:10 FH: no 13:14:19 ... we have had some discussions 13:14:34 MC: of the ones we listed, are they controversial? 13:14:42 FH: DSA has some controversy 13:16:02 The concern is that DSA may have some of the same risks as RSA, making it less suitable if an issue is discovered with RSA 13:16:04 Benoit has joined #wam 13:16:22 Topic: DigSig: Getting review of 31-Mar-2009 WD 13:16:28 The concerns with ECDSA include availability of implementations and potential IPR risks. 13:16:31 AB: first question is who besides XML Sec WG and BONDI should be included in the request for comments? Another question is do we need announcement on public-webapps? 13:17:22 AB: FH, any other WG? 13:17:32 + +45.29.aacc 13:17:32 FH: not sure who would be appropriate 13:17:42 AB: any other suggestions? 13:17:58 MC: maybe MWBP but I don't feel strongly 13:18:13 AB: annouce on public-webapps? 13:18:31 ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps 13:18:32 Created ACTION-328 - Annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09]. 13:18:41 Topic: DigSig: Issues inventory, actions, plans 13:19:01 AB: let's quickly look at the inventory of Issues and Actions for DigSig and look for "what's missing" rather than actually doing a deep dive: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/products/8 13:19:05 darobin has joined #wam 13:19:17 AB: we can track the Issues in the spec or by Tracker; I'm mostly indifferent provided the issues are documented. Let's start with Issues. Are there any major issues that are not captured? Last Editor's Draft is http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ 13:19:39 I strongly request algorithm comments be sent to XML Security WG, public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org 13:19:51 MoZ_at_Prague has joined #wam 13:19:55 MC: want Mark to help clarify Issue #83 13:20:25 MP: I was under the impression this should be closed 13:20:36 ... I sent an email about this 13:20:48 MC: I couldn't find any trace 13:20:58 ... in the mail archive 13:21:09 ... We agreed we didn't think it was a problem 13:21:30 AB: we can close this now, Mark, if that is your pref 13:21:43 MP: I don't think this is a real issue 13:21:55 ... I am OK with a resolution that we don't do anything about it 13:22:22 ... I will find the email and then either resend or agree to close it 13:22:44 AB: FH, what issues need to be captured 13:23:05 FH: please, Everyone, send comments about algorithms to the XML Sec WG 13:23:13 ... that will help with Iss #81 13:23:15 shepazu has joined #wam 13:23:16 ... two more issues 13:23:26 ... one is related to authoring 13:23:39 ... an issue there is what is legally binding 13:23:51 ... to do with the semantics of "author" 13:23:58 ... the wording has people a bit concerned 13:24:53 AB: how do we handle this Issue, or email? 13:25:08 FH: I can handle this via email 13:25:22 ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring issue 13:25:22 Created ACTION-329 - Send an email to address this authoring issue [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-04-09]. 13:25:39 FH: the other issue is the alignment of the requirements 13:26:02 MC: I have aligned the two docs now 13:26:08 ... I abstracted the req a bit 13:26:30 R52 ok? 13:26:40 ... I also changed the numbers in the DigSig ED so they align with the numbers in the Reqs doc 13:26:53 FH: not sure R#52 is correct 13:27:26 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax 13:27:40 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple-signatures-and-certificate-chains 13:27:42 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements 13:28:05 FH: we just need to tweak the DigSig spec to match 13:28:19 all those in requirements doc look like R1? 13:28:26 MC: I think the alignment is done 13:28:33 R52. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms: DSA-SHA-1, RSA-SHA-1, DSA-SHA-256 and RSA-SHA-256. 13:28:38 ... I don't think we need to change anything in the digsig spec 13:29:03 MC: sorry, I understand now 13:29:14 darobin has joined #wam 13:29:17 ... I do need to change the Reqs doc 13:29:53 ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the Reqs doc 13:29:53 Created ACTION-330 - Make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the Reqs doc [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-04-09]. 13:30:17 MP: I think it is good to use the new abstraction 13:30:37 ... but in the spec we need to be more specific, as we've done 13:30:56 ... must have at least one mandatory algorithm 13:31:21 q? 13:31:23 q- 13:32:33 ... I think what we now have is OK 13:32:54 AB: if you have any comments please submit them 13:33:32 ... we want BONDI to submit comments ASAP 13:33:40 DR: yes, I will take that message to BONDI 13:33:45 q+ 13:34:08 AB: David, you also have an open Action to get BONDI to supply feedback re the algorithms 13:34:47 FH: David, if people could send comments to XML Sec WG that would be good 13:34:53 q- 13:34:57 AB: any other Dig Sig topics for today? 13:35:04 FH: no, I think we've covered them 13:35:20 Topic: P&C: Planning 13:35:30 AB: any comments on the P&C publication plans I sent yesterday? 13:36:05 MC: I think they are OK, fingers-crossed and such 13:36:16 AB: anyone else? 13:36:19 [ None ] 13:36:25 Topic: P&C: Simple approach for 13:36:40 AB: is Robin here? 13:36:46 DR: I think IRC only 13:36:51 AB: last week Robin submitted a proposal for the element http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0943.html Any comments? 13:36:58 Robin is in the OMTP meeting at the moment 13:37:31 AB: any general comments? 13:37:52 ... hearing none, please send comments to the mail list 13:38:11 MC: it is similar to what we've alreday proposed 13:38:24 arve has joined #wam 13:38:28 ... that is, it is similar to what Opera had already proposed 13:38:29 q+ 13:38:34 ... we will work with Robin on this 13:38:57 MP: it is similar to what has already been proposed with perhaps a few additional restrictions 13:39:04 ... e.g. the wildcard 13:39:35 ... we need to review the wildcard change 13:40:07 AB: any other comments? 13:40:36 ... David, please let BONDI know we seek comments on this as soon as possible 13:40:58 DR: yes, we know about this and given the BONDI meeting this week, we won't get comments to the group until next week 13:41:04 abraun has joined #wam 13:41:09 Topic: P&C: and URI equivalence 13:41:18 AB: last week Thomas started a thread on and URI equivalence http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0935.html Any comments? 13:41:46 AB: Thomas isn't here 13:42:01 ... Marcos, what is the relationship between Robin's proposal and TLR's proposal? 13:42:13 MC: it is related to the URI proposal 13:42:38 ... but I'm not sure what Thomas' proposal is about; relates to Dan C's Web URL proposal 13:42:51 http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/008373680cae/wah5/draft.html 13:42:56 ... I think it's called Web Addresses in HTML5 13:43:13 Topic: P&C: Move element to the Updates spec? 13:43:29 AB: The P&C spec defines the element but defers the processing model to the Updates spec. I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of moving the definition of this element to the Updates spec and thus P&C would contain no reference(s) to the Updates spec. Given the P&C's extensibility model supports elements being defined in a separate spec, this can be easily done (from an Editorial perspective). I think the clear advantage of doing this is that it removes 13:45:18 Present+ Benoit 13:45:38 BS: until the PAG has reviewed this, I'm not sure this is a good idea 13:46:12 ... I think what we've specified is similar to what FF has defined 13:46:21 DR: is the Updates spec frozen? 13:46:35 MC: no, Rigo said we can we keep working on it 13:47:08 AB: would like to hear Mike's perspective on this 13:47:24 MS: we can keep working on it and even publish a new WD of the Updates spec 13:48:06 AB: we can indeed then do as proposed 13:48:34 BS: will still need something in the config file 13:48:44 ... it is the engine that is requesting something 13:49:08 MC: the question is whether the update element is specified in the P+C spec or a the separate Updates spec 13:49:21 ... it doesn't really matter where it is specified 13:49:31 ... thus technically it doesn't matter 13:49:50 ... P+C doesn't say what to do with the element 13:50:04 BS: P+C says it has to be there 13:50:24 tlr has joined #wam 13:51:44 AB: I don't think someone is not going to know the Updates spec exists 13:51:49 MS: I agree with Art 13:52:06 MC: I like this proposal from a separation of concerns perspective 13:52:21 ... but politically, it is a bit irritating 13:52:44 - +0771751aabb 13:52:53 BS: there is no one document that captures everything 13:53:01 looking at it on the side onf the developpers, it makes sens to have one single place to view the xml file 13:54:00 AB: the model, by design, is that P+C defines the core set of elements 13:54:12 ... and anyone else can define additional elements 13:54:24 (sorry had to drop off the call) 13:54:31 BS: but would like some type of umbrella spec that identifies all of the parts 13:54:47 ... I don't object to removing update element 13:55:10 ... and I'm OK with a Red Block in the LC that warns this element may be removed 13:56:31 AB: it appears we do not have consensus to move the update element to the Updates spec 13:57:06 MC: I agree with Benoit we would need a doc that talks about how the specs fit together 13:57:25 there is a widget engine on one side and the widgets on the other, and the IP information we have is applying to one program updating itself but here we have one program updating another (much like the Firefox program updates it's plugin) 13:57:27 ... but I think we should take it out 13:57:40 ... and do as Mike suggested and continue to work on the Updates spec 13:57:59 ... we could even make the move and publish a new WD of Updates within a couple of weeks 13:58:53 AB: I haven't read the IP, I don't plan to read the IP and I'm not sure we should base our decsion on the IP 13:59:21 AB: I propose we move the element to the Updates spec 13:59:33 AB: comments? 13:59:45 I object 13:59:46 ... mainly looking for do you agree or object 14:00:15 MC: Arve and I agree 14:00:29 BS: I object 14:00:46 AB: what is your basis for the objection? 14:01:03 BS: I want to wait for the PAG to discuss this 14:01:18 ... I don't think we need to do this now 14:01:35 MC: it would simplify the P+C spec 14:01:49 ... and it is a good technical separation 14:01:59 ... it doesn't really even belong in the P+C spec 14:02:22 DR: does anyone have a link to Rigo's email? 14:02:50 AB: we have no consensus 14:02:56 ... Mike, what do we do 14:04:37 AB: rigo: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0090.html 14:05:50 MS: we can handle this a couple of ways 14:05:56 ... Editors can make the decision 14:06:03 ... Chair can make a decsion 14:06:30 ... We don't have to make a decision now 14:06:53 AB: I agree with Marcos 14:07:24 ... I ask him to go ahead and make those changes 14:07:37 Topic: A&E: Planning 14:07:49 AB: any comments on the A&E publication plans I sent yesterday? 14:08:10 Arve: I am fine with the plan 14:08:24 AB: any other comments about the plan? 14:08:26 [ None ] 14:08:32 Topic: A&E: plan to get inputs on the Red Block issues 14:08:41 AB: last week Arve said he would submit a proposal to address the A&E's red block issues. What is the status Arve? 14:08:55 Arve: I haven't had the time 14:09:07 AB: how can we help you? 14:09:25 Arve: the red block issues that are mostly trivial 14:09:38 ... there is one substantial change 14:10:01 ... we agreed to move the Window object 14:10:14 ... http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/ 14:10:59 AB: can we get a proposal for these before the next meeting? 14:11:12 Arve: when is the next meeting? 14:11:15 AB: April 9 14:11:22 Arve: that is a public holiday in NO 14:11:32 AB: how about April 8? 14:11:48 Arve: that should be do-able 14:12:10 AB: is that true for the other Europeans? 14:12:22 Arve: NO has several days of Easter holiday 14:12:26 DR: not in the UK 14:12:42 Easter Monday is a bank holiday 14:12:55 AB: I'm trying to determine if we will have critical mass on April 9 14:13:20 MC: probably I won't be available 14:13:31 AB: FH won't be available on April 9 14:13:47 RESOLUTION: we will not have a Voice Conference on April 9 14:14:18 AB: Arve, what's the plan for these Red Block issues in the A+E spec? 14:14:51 Arve: I will address them ASAP and send my proposal to the mail list 14:15:27 ... if there is no major pushback, we can determine if the next step is a WD or LCWD 14:16:23 "the group can determine" 14:17:06 I will not object to the group's decision even if I'm not present 14:17:30 AB: any last comments on the A+E spec? 14:17:32 [ None ] 14:17:44 Topic: URI scheme 14:18:03 AB: Before we get to the status and plans, I want to first understand the dependency(s) other specs have on this scheme. What is the dependency chain? 14:18:56 AB: more specifically, will P+C, A+E or DigSig have a dependency on this scheme? 14:19:38 All specs can make use a of a URI scheme, but they are designed in such a way that they don't depend on any 14:20:23 AB: so P+C, A+E and DigSig can go to Candidate and be implemented without this URI scheme being nailed down? 14:20:34 MC: I would argue yes 14:20:39 ... but TLR may argue no 14:20:53 AB: what do other people think? 14:21:05 [ No comments ] 14:21:17 AB: what is the status and plan? I believe Robin has agreed to lead this work. 14:21:37 AB: Marcos, did you and/or Arve agree to work with him on this? 14:21:44 MC: yes, I can work with Robin 14:21:54 ... would be good to have timeless / Josh to help 14:22:19 AB: last I talked with Josh he had higher priorities 14:22:54 MC: we could create an absolute minimal scheme ie. just the path and scheme 14:23:10 ... but that will receive negative feedback to 14:23:27 ... no matter what we do we will run into other people's agenda 14:23:35 ... expect a defacto standard here 14:23:48 ... but maybe Robin can come up with a proposal everyone can agree with 14:24:11 Topic: AOB 14:24:17 AB: I don't have anything; do others? 14:24:31 BS: what about the next meeting? 14:25:29 ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the mail list 14:25:29 Created ACTION-331 - Send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09]. 14:25:41 AB: anything else? 14:26:11 MC: I18N model - I created a rather large doc about how to localize a widgets 14:26:19 ... need to get consensus soon 14:26:35 ... it was a lot more complicated then I had originally imagined 14:26:49 ... I expect to send the proposal to the group within a few days 14:27:24 AB: is this going to be a separate spec? 14:27:41 MC: no; my doc includes different proposals 14:27:51 ... want people to pick from the various solutions 14:28:06 AB: this sounds great 14:28:15 ... looking forward to reading this 14:28:20 ... so early next week? 14:28:22 MC: yes 14:28:36 AB: anything else? 14:28:52 AB: Meeting Adjourned; next Voice Conf will be April 16 14:28:58 - +1.919.536.aaaa 14:29:00 -fjh 14:29:03 - +45.29.aacc 14:29:04 -??P8 14:29:04 -Keio 14:29:04 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:29:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html ArtB 14:29:05 -Marcos/Arve 14:31:03 -Art_Barstow 14:31:04 IA_WebApps(Widgets)9:00AM has ended 14:31:05 Attendees were fjh, Art_Barstow, Keio, Marcos/Arve, +1.919.536.aaaa, +0771751aabb, +45.29.aacc 14:33:48 zakim, bye 14:33:48 Zakim has left #wam 14:34:04 arve has left #wam 14:41:18 RRSAgent, bye 14:41:18 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-actions.rdf : 14:41:18 ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [1] 14:41:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc#T13-13-51 14:41:18 ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps [2] 14:41:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc#T13-18-31 14:41:18 ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring issue [3] 14:41:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc#T13-25-22 14:41:18 ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the Reqs doc [4] 14:41:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc#T13-29-53 14:41:18 ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the mail list [5] 14:41:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-irc#T14-25-29 14:41:32 ArtB has changed the topic to: WebApps WG - this channel is NOT logged