See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: ArtB
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 2 April 2009
AB: draft agenda posted on April
1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0006.html
... Any change requests?
FH: re DigSig want to add some items
AB: OK
... any other change requests?
[ None ]
AB: DigSig WD published on March
31. Good work Frederick, Marcos, Mark and the rest of
you!
... any other short announcements?
[ None ]
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
<mpriestl> {can't join conference bridge... trying again)
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.
FH: general concern about the
excellerated schedule for DigSig
... mandatory algorithms can take more than one month
... need to some consistency
... Do algorithms need to be frozen before LC?
<mpriestl> (sorry can I check that the following are correct +1.617.761.6200, conference 9231 ("WAF1"))
AB: good questions. How about you, me, Mike and Thomas take this offline and talk about scenarios
FH: the concern is that XML Sec WG may not agree with our schedule
<marcos> akim, what's the passcode?
FH: do you agree this is an excellerated schedule?
<marcos> mpriestl: ^^^
FH: they may have a real issue
with us doing this so fast re algorithms
... the decision will depend on implementations
... we don't know resource commitments yet
<mpriestl> (success! thanks Marcos)
<fjh> A concern with the proposed last call schedule is that we may not have a final decision on mandatory algorithms in time.
AB: re excellerated, we could debate that. Again, I think we should take this offline and talk about the various scenarios
<fjh> The reason for this is that this decision will depend in part on the ability of stakeholders to implement the algorithms that are required.
<fjh> This knowledge will require some to allocate resources to determine what is involved.
<fjh> This will take some time.
<fjh> 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.
<fjh> It would help to accelerate this decision making process if members of the Web Applications Working Group
<fjh> who sent comments and feedback regarding algorithms, such as Elliptic Curve, to send those comments directly
<fjh> to the XML Security WG comments list at
<scribe> ACTION: barstow work with Frederick, Thomas and MikeSmith re the timing for moving Widgets DigSig to LC in April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> 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].
<fjh> public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org
MC: did we reach consensus on ECC?
FH: no
... we have had some discussions
MC: of the ones we listed, are they controversial?
FH: DSA has some controversy
<fjh> 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
<fjh> The concerns with ECDSA include availability of implementations and potential IPR risks.
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?
... FH, any other WG?
FH: not sure who would be appropriate
AB: any other suggestions?
MC: maybe MWBP but I don't feel strongly
AB: annouce on public-webapps?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Annouce 31 March DigSig spec on public-webapps [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].
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
... 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/
<fjh> I strongly request algorithm comments be sent to XML Security WG, public-xmlsec-comments@w3.org
MC: want Mark to help clarify Issue #83
MP: I was under the impression
this should be closed
... I sent an email about this
MC: I couldn't find any
trace
... in the mail archive
... We agreed we didn't think it was a problem
AB: we can close this now, Mark, if that is your pref
MP: I don't think this is a real
issue
... I am OK with a resolution that we don't do anything about
it
... I will find the email and then either resend or agree to
close it
AB: FH, what issues need to be captured
FH: please, Everyone, send
comments about algorithms to the XML Sec WG
... that will help with Iss #81
... two more issues
... one is related to authoring
... an issue there is what is legally binding
<marcos> ... to do with the semantics of "author"
FH: the wording has people a bit concerned
AB: how do we handle this Issue, or email?
FH: I can handle this via email
<scribe> ACTION: hirsch send an email to address this authoring issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Send an email to address this authoring issue [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-04-09].
FH: the other issue is the alignment of the requirements
MC: I have aligned the two docs
now
... I abstracted the req a bit
<fjh> R52 ok?
MC: I also changed the numbers in the DigSig ED so they align with the numbers in the Reqs doc
FH: not sure R#52 is correct
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#use-and-syntax
<marcos> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#multiple-signatures-and-certificate-chains
<fjh> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#requirements
FH: we just need to tweak the DigSig spec to match
<fjh> all those in requirements doc look like R1?
MC: I think the alignment is done
<fjh> R52. Support for Multiple Signature Algorithms: DSA-SHA-1, RSA-SHA-1, DSA-SHA-256 and RSA-SHA-256.
MC: I don't think we need to
change anything in the digsig spec
... sorry, I understand now
... I do need to change the Reqs doc
<scribe> ACTION: Marcos make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the Reqs doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Make sure the DigSig spec is aligned with the Reqs doc [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-04-09].
MP: I think it is good to use the
new abstraction
... but in the spec we need to be more specific, as we've
done
... must have at least one mandatory algorithm
... I think what we now have is OK
AB: if you have any comments
please submit them
... we want BONDI to submit comments ASAP
DR: yes, I will take that message to BONDI
AB: David, you also have an open Action to get BONDI to supply feedback re the algorithms
FH: David, if people could send comments to XML Sec WG that would be good
AB: any other Dig Sig topics for today?
FH: no, I think we've covered them
AB: any comments on the P&C publication plans I sent yesterday?
MC: I think they are OK, fingers-crossed and such
AB: anyone else?
[ None ]
AB: is Robin here?
DR: I think IRC only
AB: last week Robin submitted a proposal for the <access> element http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0943.html Any comments?
<drogersuk> Robin is in the OMTP meeting at the moment
AB: any general comments?
... hearing none, please send comments to the mail list
MC: it is similar to what we've
alreday proposed
... that is, it is similar to what Opera had already
proposed
... we will work with Robin on this
MP: it is similar to what has
already been proposed with perhaps a few additional
restrictions
... e.g. the wildcard
... we need to review the wildcard change
AB: any other comments?
... David, please let BONDI know we seek comments on this as
soon as possible
DR: yes, we know about this and given the BONDI meeting this week, we won't get comments to the group until next week
AB: last week Thomas started a
thread on <access> and URI equivalence
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0935.html
Any comments?
... Thomas isn't here
... Marcos, what is the relationship between Robin's proposal
and TLR's proposal?
MC: it is related to the URI
proposal
... but I'm not sure what Thomas' proposal is about; relates to
Dan C's Web URL proposal
<marcos> http://homer.w3.org/~connolly/projects/urlp/raw-file/008373680cae/wah5/draft.html
MC: I think it's called Web Addresses in HTML5
AB: The P&C spec defines the <update> 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
BS: until the PAG has reviewed
this, I'm not sure this is a good idea
... I think what we've specified is similar to what FF has
defined
DR: is the Updates spec frozen?
MC: no, Rigo said we can we keep working on it
AB: would like to hear Mike's perspective on this
MS: we can keep working on it and even publish a new WD of the Updates spec
AB: we can indeed then do as proposed
BS: will still need something in
the config file
... it is the engine that is requesting something
MC: the question is whether the
update element is specified in the P+C spec or a the separate
Updates spec
... it doesn't really matter where it is specified
... thus technically it doesn't matter
... P+C doesn't say what to do with the element
BS: P+C says it has to be there
AB: I don't think someone is not going to know the Updates spec exists
MS: I agree with Art
MC: I like this proposal from a
separation of concerns perspective
... but politically, it is a bit irritating
BS: there is no one document that captures everything
<Benoit> looking at it on the side onf the developpers, it makes sens to have one single place to view the xml file
AB: the model, by design, is that
P+C defines the core set of elements
... and anyone else can define additional elements
<mpriestl> (sorry had to drop off the call)
BS: but would like some type of
umbrella spec that identifies all of the parts
... I don't object to removing update element
... and I'm OK with a Red Block in the LC that warns this
element may be removed
AB: it appears we do not have consensus to move the update element to the Updates spec
MC: I agree with Benoit we would need a doc that talks about how the specs fit together
<Benoit> 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)
MC: but I think we should take it
out
... and do as Mike suggested and continue to work on the
Updates spec
... we could even make the move and publish a new WD of Updates
within a couple of weeks
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
... I propose we move the <update> element to the Updates
spec
... comments?
<Benoit> I object
AB: mainly looking for do you agree or object
MC: Arve and I agree
BS: I object
AB: what is your basis for the objection?
BS: I want to wait for the PAG to
discuss this
... I don't think we need to do this now
MC: it would simplify the P+C
spec
... and it is a good technical separation
... it doesn't really even belong in the P+C spec
DR: does anyone have a link to Rigo's email?
AB: we have no consensus
... Mike, what do we do
... rigo:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2009JanMar/0090.html
MS: we can handle this a couple
of ways
... Editors can make the decision
... Chair can make a decsion
... We don't have to make a decision now
AB: I agree with Marcos
... I ask him to go ahead and make those changes
AB: any comments on the A&E publication plans I sent yesterday?
Arve: I am fine with the plan
AB: any other comments about the plan?
[ None ]
AB: last week Arve said he would submit a proposal to address the A&E's red block issues. What is the status Arve?
Arve: I haven't had the time
AB: how can we help you?
Arve: the red block issues that
are mostly trivial
... there is one substantial change
... we agreed to move the Window object
... http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
AB: can we get a proposal for these before the next meeting?
Arve: when is the next meeting?
AB: April 9
Arve: that is a public holiday in NO
AB: how about April 8?
Arve: that should be do-able
AB: is that true for the other Europeans?
Arve: NO has several days of Easter holiday
DR: not in the UK
<drogersuk> Easter Monday is a bank holiday
AB: I'm trying to determine if we will have critical mass on April 9
MC: probably I won't be available
AB: FH won't be available on April 9
RESOLUTION: we will not have a Voice Conference on April 9
AB: Arve, what's the plan for these Red Block issues in the A+E spec?
Arve: I will address them ASAP
and send my proposal to the mail list
... if there is no major pushback, we can determine if the next
step is a WD or LCWD
<arve> "the group can determine"
<arve> I will not object to the group's decision even if I'm not present
AB: any last comments on the A+E spec?
[ None ]
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?
... more specifically, will P+C, A+E or DigSig have a
dependency on this scheme?
<marcos> 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
AB: so P+C, A+E and DigSig can go to Candidate and be implemented without this URI scheme being nailed down?
MC: I would argue yes
... but TLR may argue no
AB: what do other people think?
[ No comments ]
AB: what is the status and plan?
I believe Robin has agreed to lead this work.
... Marcos, did you and/or Arve agree to work with him on
this?
MC: yes, I can work with
Robin
... would be good to have timeless / Josh to help
AB: last I talked with Josh he had higher priorities
MC: we could create an absolute
minimal scheme ie. just the path and scheme
... but that will receive negative feedback to
... no matter what we do we will run into other people's
agenda
... expect a defacto standard here
... but maybe Robin can come up with a proposal everyone can
agree with
AB: I don't have anything; do others?
BS: what about the next meeting?
<scribe> ACTION: barstow send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the mail list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Send London June f2f meeting wiki page to the mail list [on Arthur Barstow - due 2009-04-09].
AB: anything else?
MC: I18N model - I created a
rather large doc about how to localize a widgets
... need to get consensus soon
... it was a lot more complicated then I had originally
imagined
... I expect to send the proposal to the group within a few
days
AB: is this going to be a separate spec?
MC: no; my doc includes different
proposals
... want people to pick from the various solutions
AB: this sounds great
... looking forward to reading this
... so early next week?
MC: yes
AB: anything else?
... Meeting Adjourned; next Voice Conf will be April 16
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ArtB Inferring ScribeNick: ArtB Found ScribeNick: ArtB Present: Art Frederick Mike Marcos Arve Andy David Mark Benoit Regrets: Robin Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0006.html Found Date: 02 Apr 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-wam-minutes.html People with action items: an barstow email hirsch marcos send[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]