<bal> trackbot, start telecon
<trackbot> Meeting: XML Security Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 06 November 2009
<Cynthia> Date: 11/06/09
<bal> ScribeNick: bal
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0011.html
scantor: email yesterday raised the question as to whether we should be using xml:id for our Id attributes in our 1.1 drafts
fhirsch: example: ECKeyValue has an Id attribute
tlr: xml signature to date uses an "Id" attribute defined on its own. Scott's question is whether it would be better to use xml:id instead.
scantor: consistency argument both for (in line with the rest of W3C) and against (in line with existing practice)
bal: if we move to xml:id does that mean we have to use c14n1.1?
tlr: if we were changing schemas, we should move to xml:id. -1 to any mix
... we should either move to xml:id completely or stick with what we have for 1.1.
<fhirsch> for 1.1 we want compatibility with 1.0 so we can't change all the schema
fhirsch: if we want compatibility with 1.0, then we need to keep it as is.
Resolution: For 1.1, for new schema continue to use "Id" attributes as in 1.0.
fhirsch: Agenda rearranging...
... would like to finish 1.1 stuff first today.
Cynthia: has additional wording for Signature to discuss
fhirsch: we also have to do the roadmap & figure out what happens with CR.
... did everyone do the Present+ stuff?
<Cynthia> In section 2,1, paragraph [s14-16], The use of the KeyInfo field is implementation dependent; however, the use of the field must be known to the sender and receiver.
<fhirsch> Use of KeyInfo is optional, however note that senders and receivers must agree on how it will be used through a mechanism out of scope for this specification
Resolution: add text to XML Signature 1.1 as per above, i.e. In section 2,1, paragraph [s14-16], "Use of KeyInfo is optional, however note that senders and receivers must agree on how it will be used through a mechanism out of scope for this specification."
<fhirsch> to be added as last sentence
final text: Use of KeyInfo is optional, however note that senders and receivers must agree on how it will be used through a mechanism out of scope for this specification.
<tlr> section 2.1, [s14-16]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#sec-o-Simple
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to make changes to section 2.1 as above [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-429 - Make changes to section 2.1 as above [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-11-13].
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Oct/0078.html
fhirsch: Pratik to present his XML Signature 2.0 .ppt deck
pratik: would like to post this deck on the WG website. Our spec is pretty technical, we need something to give non-XMLSEC folks a way to learn about the spec
fhirsch: not sure if we just put it on the homepage or need to do more
tlr: put it on the homepage is fine
fhirsch: let's go through it quickly
pratik: (starts walking through the deck, beginning with a timeline of the specs)
gerald: s/NIST Suite B/Suite B/
pratik: slide 3: primary goals of 2.0
fhirsch: suggests alternative wording for "security & policy check"
... maybe "reduce security attack surface?"
tlr: yes, policy is a means
pratik: robustness (slide 4)
... this is about the brittleness of 1.x signatures
fhirsch: need to control messaging about 1.1 -- probably don't want to put up a proposal that says "1.1 stinks" while 1.1 is making its way to Rec.
... suggests some bullet point edits
... more wordsmithing on slide 5
... (more on robustness)
... replace JAXB reference with "XML Schema to native object translation (data bindings)"
scantor: still bugs me that we're trying to fix a bug in JAXB in this spec
pratik: slide 6 now, talking about security issues in 1.x
... talk about the role of transforms
... transforms can be misused, etc.
... (slide 8) in a client-server scenario, signatures can come from anywhere and are completely untrusted
... (slide 9)
... 2.0 eliminates some DoS attacks that have been pointed out in 1.X
... XSLT disallowed completely
... (slide 10): more on eliminated transforms, including XSLT and Decrypt Transform
fhirsch: whole point of the decrypt transform was to record the order
... there may be cases where decrypt transform is still usable or needed
... (slide 11)
... (slide 12) streaming
pratik: (slide 13): these are the performance improvements made in 2.0
... that can apply to non-streaming implementations also
tlr: (minor wordsmithing)
pratik: (slide 14)
... (slide 15)
... some wordsmithing
... (slide 16)
fhirsch: will send revised version to the list
Resolution: Frederick to send revised version of the .ppt to the mailing list and solicit one round of final comments. We will vote on the next call whether to post the deck to our homepage.
<Cynthia> here
<tlr> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03928.html
<tlr> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03928.html
Cynthia: looked at 1.0 and 1.1 docs
<fjh> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0015.html
<fjh> explain doc
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmlenc-core-11/explain.html
Cynthia: found some things missing from the changes in XML Enc 1.1 doc
... need to add the optional elements KeyDerivationMethod and DerivedKeyName to 3.5.2
... identified added text in 3.7 and 5.1
... removed section 5.8
<scribe> ACTION: fjh to edit the XML Encryption explanation document to make changes identified by Cynthia. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-430 - Edit the XML Encryption explanation document to make changes identified by Cynthia. [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-11-13].
Resolution: To accept the explanation changes provided by Cynthia.
<fjh> link from Cynthia http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0016.html
oops, phone got disconnected
<fjh> the data may be in a variety of formats
Cynthia: edits to the abstract
... Section 2: need to say CipherData element is never empty
... we talk about it before we define it
<fjh> One of CipherValue or CipherReference must be present in CipherData.
<fjh> add after the example in 2.0
<Cynthia> I agree with the re-wordings
Cynthia: enumerations aren't defined in the formalisms
... edit section 2 to add definition of "|"
... editorial corrections to section 1.1
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to fix "they" in RFC2119 section throughout all documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-431 - Fix "they" in RFC2119 section throughout all documents [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
asks whether we need two independent interoperable implementations for all parts of the spec, or do we just need two indep implementations for MUSTs and one for the optionals?
tlr: the latter (IETF-like) is OK.
... (editing the interop page to reflect that the AES keywrap is now an RFC)
<esimon2> I do not.
<fjh> at CR stage in process ask for external implementations
<fjh> Jan/Feb timeframe for CR
tlr: we can put out an informal notice to the IETF through the W3C-IETF liaison
... and mention that we have a new draft and CR and are thus calling for implementations
fjh: we anticipate some issues with completing interop testing given existing resources of the participating members
... and thomas and i are exploring some additional options on the side
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to talk to sean about possible resources [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-432 - Talk to sean about possible resources [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
fjh: we need to generate test cases in advance of the interop.
... I'll talk to Juan-Carlos about this.
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Oct/0067.html
fjh: pratik did some work on c14n for non-elements
<tlr> s/put out informal notice to the IETF through the W3C-IETF liaison/put an informal note to SAAG and a formal one to the "real" liaison process/
<esimon2> Thanks Pratik for highlight that test case -- exactly what I was looking for.
(searching for ed's mail in the archives)
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Sep/0009.html
esimon2: when you have a node set that doesn't represent an xml document or xml element the way it canonicalize needs to be clarified
... not clear in the c14n spec how to handle these cases
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to propose C14N erratum to address http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Sep/0009.html issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-433 - Propose C14N erratum to address http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Sep/0009.html issue [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
<scantor> ACTION: scantor to propose "final" disposition of Referencing syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-434 - Propose "final" disposition of Referencing syntax [on Scott Cantor - due 2009-11-13].
fjh: Canceling call on 11/10. Next call is 11/17
... when should we have our next F2F? Do we need a next F2F?
<shivaram> If there are outcomes from ECC related stuff, a f2f may be warranted
fjh: we're thinking of meeting the 16th & 17th of June in Barcelona
<tlr> ACTION: fjh to confirm or cancel 16/17 June face-to-face - due 2010-03-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - confirm or cancel 16/17 June face-to-face [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-03-31].
fjh: we will have a f2f only if we have sufficient work on the agenda to justify the time & expense of a f2f meeting.
<tlr> ACTION-435 due 2010-02-28
<trackbot> ACTION-435 confirm or cancel 16/17 June face-to-face due date now 2010-02-28
fjh: suggests a break now. starting back up at 1pm
<leader> action-351?
<trackbot> ACTION-351 -- Pratik Datta to summarize design rationale for xsd:any in note in spec -- due 2009-08-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/351
http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/351
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-CanonicalizationMethod
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-o-Simple
<fjh> where do we define how c1n420 parameters are serialized
tlr: where do we describe how the parameters in section 2.2 aare serialized
pdatta: look at section 4.4.3
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-Reference
<fjh> definition for special transform...
<fjh> 4.4.3.1
scantor: where is specialcanonicalization defined?
<fjh> CanonicalizationType
fjh: question about extensibility in all of this
scantor: schema has an xsd:any, which we should look at to decide whether it should be an any or an other
... should we reserve the right to define new elements in this namespace to this wg or w3c?
pdatta: any gives us a syntax error right now
scantor: we should have a design discussion separately
<fjh> suggest we change to other, and add prose that extensions need to be in different namespace
<fjh> action-351 change ##any to ##other with explanation to use other namespace for extensions
<fjh> action-351 section4.4.3.1 http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-20/#sec-Reference
<fjh> action-371?
<trackbot> ACTION-371 -- Pratik Datta to add id and position handling in step in draft -- due 2009-09-29 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/371
<fjh> additions to XPath subset
<fjh> action-382?
<trackbot> ACTION-382 -- Pratik Datta to add guidance on semantic equivalence to Signature 2.0 related to ISSUE-131, which defaults, how equivalent does it get -- due 2009-10-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/382
<fjh> issue-131?
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Is semantic equivalence robustness in requirements document -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/131
<fjh> action-382 clarify which options needed to achieve semantic equivalence
wasn't this about what options you'd have to turn on if you wanted semantic equivalence and what it means?
<fjh> action-409?
<trackbot> ACTION-409 -- Pratik Datta to revisit text with regards to XPath profile -- due 2009-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/409
<fjh> action-409 add text function
pdatta: this is about the text() function
<fjh> action-426?
<trackbot> ACTION-426 -- Pratik Datta to run old tests -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/426
pdatta: these are performance tests
fjh: this item is to run the performance tests on the non-optimized implementations
<fjh> action-411?
<trackbot> ACTION-411 -- Pratik Datta to perform measurement related to transform octet conversion -- due 2009-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/411
<fjh> action-364?
<trackbot> ACTION-364 -- Pratik Datta to get feedback from implementers on XPath approach -- due 2009-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/364
<tlr> ACTION-364 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-364 Get feedback from implementers on XPath approach closed
<fjh> action-392?
<trackbot> ACTION-392 -- Gerald Edgar to see if issue-131 is covered in requirements doc -- due 2009-10-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/392
<fjh> issue-131?
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Is semantic equivalence robustness in requirements document -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/131
<fjh> action=389?
<fjh> issue-63?
<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Namespace requirements: undeclarations, QNames, use of partial content in new contexts -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/63
<fjh> action-389?
<trackbot> ACTION-389 -- Gerald Edgar to propose requirements text for issue-63 -- due 2009-10-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/389
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to review requirements for issue-63 text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-436 - Review requirements for issue-63 text [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
<tlr> action-389 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-389 Propose requirements text for issue-63 closed
<tlr> ACTION-228 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-228 Send a message to the list of closed issues and how they were closed closed
<fjh> action-429?
<trackbot> ACTION-429 -- Frederick Hirsch to make changes to section 2.1 as above -- due 2009-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/429
<tlr> ACTION-420 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-420 Share with Norm the RELAX schema closed
<fjh> action-424?
<trackbot> ACTION-424 -- Frederick Hirsch to share performance information with the EXI group -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/424
<tlr> ACTION-424 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-424 Share performance information with the EXI group closed
<tlr> ACTION-424: We think everything that could usefully happen has happened, therefore closed
<trackbot> ACTION-424 Share performance information with the EXI group notes added
<Zakim> tlr, you wanted to tell fjh about the queue
<fjh> action-404?
<trackbot> ACTION-404 -- Brian LaMacchia to draft language that codifies history why DERKeyValue is not child of KeyValue (for section 4.4 of xmldsig-core1) -- due 2009-10-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/404
<fjh> QNames handled with prefix re-writing in 2.0 specs and updated in requirements
<fjh> issue-63?
<trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Namespace requirements: undeclarations, QNames, use of partial content in new contexts -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/63
<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to remember how to use the queue
<fjh> action-422?
<trackbot> ACTION-422 -- Cynthia Martin to propose wording to improve KEYINFO explanation -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/422
<tlr> action-422 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-422 Propose wording to improve KEYINFO explanation closed
<tlr> action-398 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-398 review xml encryption 1.1 explain document and errata closed
<fjh> action-398?
<trackbot> ACTION-398 -- Cynthia Martin to review xml encryption 1.1 explain document and errata -- due 2009-10-27 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/398
<fjh> action=77?
<fjh> action-77?
<trackbot> ACTION-77 -- Sean Mullan to update best practices document for section titles -- due 2008-10-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/77
<fjh> action-383?
<trackbot> ACTION-383 -- Sean Mullan to provide reference to performance paper -- due 2009-10-06 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/383
<tlr> action-406?
<trackbot> ACTION-406 -- Magnus Nystrom to make proposal on list to address SP80056AConcatKDF in XML Encryption 1.1 concern -- due 2009-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/406
<tlr> action-406 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-406 Make proposal on list to address SP80056AConcatKDF in XML Encryption 1.1 concern closed
<fjh> action-350?
<trackbot> ACTION-350 -- Ed Simon to propose text to align node set result treatment for XSLT and XPath in 1.1 spec -- due 2009-08-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/350
<shivaram> ed - are you there?
action-346 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-346 Review 2.0 sig docs closed
<fjh> issue-115?
<trackbot> ISSUE-115 -- XPath Filter Transform and Namespace Declarations for Qualified Nodes, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/115
<fjh> action-263?
<trackbot> ACTION-263 -- Ed Simon to generate working examples for ISSUE-115 and review how toolkits handle the issue -- due 2009-04-28 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/263
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html
<tlr> issue-115?
<trackbot> ISSUE-115 -- XPath Filter Transform and Namespace Declarations for Qualified Nodes, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/115
<tlr> ACTION: fjh to move sig/enc core 1.1 specs to respec; resolve ISSUE-147 as side effect [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-437 - Move sig/enc core 1.1 specs to respec; resolve ISSUE-147 as side effect [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-11-13].
<tlr> ACTION: shivaram to check 1.1 requirements against enc, sig EDs - due 2009-11-16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-438 - check 1.1 requirements against enc, sig EDs [on Shivaram Mysore - due 2009-11-16].
issue-150?
<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- Use of XML encryption type encoding in EXI -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/150
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-best-practices/#filename-extension
<Cynthia> check out http://www.w3.org/TR/exi-impacts/
<fjh> should encoding attribute of xml enc be used to indicate exi encoding
<Cynthia> EXI encoding: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-exi-20080919/
<fjh> Scott notes application processes based on type and commonly ignores encoding
<fjh> for extension new type could also look at encoding
<fjh> Scott notes look in xml enc 1.1 spec in 4.2
<fjh> pratik notes step 5 is possible, no type specified
<fjh> EXI encoding returned in Encoding attribute
<fjh> Scott question - do we discuss EXI within xmlenc
<fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
<bal> tlr: drafting email to John Schneider to ask him about this issue
<bal> issue-148 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-148 Define PartyUInfo with XML structure, SP80056AConcatKDF in XML Encryption 1.1 closed
issue-148?
<trackbot> ISSUE-148 -- Define PartyUInfo with XML structure, SP80056AConcatKDF in XML Encryption 1.1 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/148
<bal> issue-119 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-119 Erratum for Signature 1.0 and use of SHA256 in favor of SHA1 closed
<bal> issue-68?
<trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Enable generic use of randomized hashing -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/68
<bal> On 27-Oct-09 we passed a resolution to not consider randomized hashing for 1.1 or 2.0
<Cynthia> here
<gedgar> here
note that having type for EXI could allow app to deal with exi directly, avoiding unnecessary parsing and serialization to /from xml
<tlr> John: Say it's an EXI fragment.
step 5, type EXI-FRAGMENT, process as EXI, replace as EXI fragment
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to draft text for xml encryption 1.1 for handing EXI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-439 - Draft text for xml encryption 1.1 for handing EXI [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
reference definition of exi-fragment
<tlr> reference "fragment" in /TR/exi
<bal> ScribeNick: bal
issue-136?
<trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- Is normalization of prefixes a goal for 2.0 c14n -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/136
<fjh> issue-136 addressed in http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/transform-note/Overview.html#prefix-rewrite
issue-136 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-136 Is normalization of prefixes a goal for 2.0 c14n closed
issue-139?
<trackbot> ISSUE-139 -- Need to collect streaming XPath requirements -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/139
csolc, are you there?
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Oct/0071.html
issue-139 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-139 Need to collect streaming XPath requirements closed
issue-69?
<trackbot> ISSUE-69 -- Update example file to avoid empty XPath result -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/69
issue-69 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-69 Update example file to avoid empty XPath result closed
<scribe> (closed Issue-69 because of Action-174)
<fjh> issue-144?
<trackbot> ISSUE-144 -- XML Schema and DTD inconsistency for SPKISexp element -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/144
will defer issue-144 until December
<fjh> issue-141?
<trackbot> ISSUE-141 -- C14N 1.1 processing of non-element, non-PI nodes in a node set -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/141
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to proposed a resolution to issue-141 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-440 - Proposed a resolution to issue-141 [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-13].
<fjh> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1.html
<scribe> ACTION: Cynthia to review BSP 1.1 (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1.html) with respect to Signature 1.1 and Encryption 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-441 - Review BSP 1.1 (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1.html) with respect to Signature 1.1 and Encryption 1.1 [on Cynthia Martin - due 2009-11-13].
issue-131?
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- Is semantic equivalence robustness in requirements document -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/131
issue-131 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-131 Is semantic equivalence robustness in requirements document closed
<fjh> issue-115?
<trackbot> ISSUE-115 -- XPath Filter Transform and Namespace Declarations for Qualified Nodes, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/115
<fjh> issue-82?
<trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Should 1.1 spec mandate support for range of RSA key sizes (and DSA)? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/82
<scribe> ACTION: bal to propose text for RSA for Issue-82 (DSA already done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action14]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-442 - Propose text for RSA for Issue-82 (DSA already done) [on Brian LaMacchia - due 2009-11-14].
issue-140?
<trackbot> ISSUE-140 -- Clarify how XPath is interpreted relative to entire document and ds:Reference -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/140
<fjh> issue-146?
<trackbot> ISSUE-146 -- Determine impact of 2.0 transform model on XML Encryption, and any needed changes to XML Encryption -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/146
issue-146?
<trackbot> ISSUE-146 -- Determine impact of 2.0 transform model on XML Encryption, and any needed changes to XML Encryption -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/146
issue-146 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-146 Determine impact of 2.0 transform model on XML Encryption, and any needed changes to XML Encryption closed
<fjh> issue-122?
<trackbot> ISSUE-122 -- Explain why peformance improvements and rationale, relationship to earlier work -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/122
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009May/0007.html
fjh: thinks we should answer this in the performance doc
issue-122: this will be addressed in the performance doc
<trackbot> ISSUE-122 Explain why peformance improvements and rationale, relationship to earlier work notes added
issue-132?
<trackbot> ISSUE-132 -- Keep 2.0 xenc transform feature in sync with signature 2.0 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/132
<fjh> issue-132 rework xenc transform to be declarative like signature 2.0
issue-123?
<trackbot> ISSUE-123 -- How in 2.0 to disallow SHA-1 when algorithm URI currently defined -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/123
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-MessageDigests
issue-87?
<trackbot> ISSUE-87 -- Determine approach to RetrievalMethod in 2.0 with regard to transforms, if any, or if revised transform approach -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/87
issue-87: we note that in 2.0 we disallow transforms in retrivalmethods and we're OK with that.
<trackbot> ISSUE-87 Determine approach to RetrievalMethod in 2.0 with regard to transforms, if any, or if revised transform approach notes added
issue-87 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-87 Determine approach to RetrievalMethod in 2.0 with regard to transforms, if any, or if revised transform approach closed
issue-43?
<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Improvements to XML Signature schema -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/43
issue-47?
<trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- XAdES references latest XML Signature, depends on ds:Object and ds:KeyInfo -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/47
issue-47: we're not removing ds:Object or ds:KeyInfo from 2.0
<trackbot> ISSUE-47 XAdES references latest XML Signature, depends on ds:Object and ds:KeyInfo notes added
issue-47 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-47 XAdES references latest XML Signature, depends on ds:Object and ds:KeyInfo closed
issue-104?
<trackbot> ISSUE-104 -- Carry existing ds:References into new XMLDSIG 2.0 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/104
issue-104: URI is as it was so we don't believe there's an issue here anymore.
<trackbot> ISSUE-104 Carry existing ds:References into new XMLDSIG 2.0 notes added
issue-104 closed?
<trackbot> ISSUE-104 Carry existing ds:References into new XMLDSIG 2.0 closed
issue-106?
<trackbot> ISSUE-106 -- see what you sign requirement in transform simplification vs external workflow -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/106
issue-106: addressed by the backward-compatibility with the original transform chain
<trackbot> ISSUE-106 see what you sign requirement in transform simplification vs external workflow notes added
issue-106 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-106 see what you sign requirement in transform simplification vs external workflow closed
<pdatta> ISSUE: Change Canonicalization 2.0 to replace the pseudo code snippets with descriptive text, and move all the pseudo code to another non normative section
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-153 - Change Canonicalization 2.0 to replace the pseudo code snippets with descriptive text, and move all the pseudo code to another non normative section ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/153/edit .
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to glue together the two pieces of today's irc log & minutes, and remove his twitter link while he's at it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action15]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Glue together the two pieces of today's irc log & minutes, and remove his twitter link while he's at it [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-14].
<scribe> ACTION: tlr to post minutes from both days of F2F. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/06-xmlsec-minutes.html#action16]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Post minutes from both days of F2F. [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-14].
<fjh> adjourned