See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2009
<fhirsch> ScribeNick: Cynthia
<fhirsch> Cynthia volunteered to scribe
<fhirsch> SAAG 1.1 Last Call warning note
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0028.html
<fhirsch> Publication moratoria
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2009Nov/0011.html
<G-Edgar> I am on IRC, but I will not be able to call in just yet
Will not go to last call yet, will wait, too many issues
<aldrin> am i mute?
still adding information to the XML encryption v1.1 document, will wait for last call
there is a publication moratoria Dec 18
<fhirsch> Publication moratoria, Deadline 18 Dec 2009
if we are going to last call for DSIG v1.1 we need to do it before Dec 18
We have a meeting next week, Thomas is chairing
Continue to have a call on Dec 24, many may be on vacation
Call scheduled for Dec 8 and 16, could do one 22 and 29
any changes to the agenda? Any other business?
<shivaram> nope - I did not scribe
<shivaram> sorry
<shivaram> I did scribe for a while
<esimon2> Re Minutes of F2F, list of present does not show those who attended partially (e.g. me)
Any comments on F2F minutes? need to review them for next week
Will try to approve the F2F minutes next week
Added References to the Best Practices document, need additional references
Almost finished with References for DSIG v1.1
<tlr> woo-hoo, re shared bibliography
fhirsch: Will use the new format
for v1.1 documents, once it's set up you can share bibliography
between the documents
... need a volunteer for the bibliography review
I can review it
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to hand 1.1 bibliography to Cynthia when converted to respec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-448 - Hand 1.1 bibliography to Cynthia when converted to respec [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-11-24].
<tlr> ACTION: cynthia to review 1.1 bibliographies (depends on ACTION-448) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-449 - Review 1.1 bibliographies (depends on ACTION-448) [on Cynthia Martin - due 2009-11-24].
fhirsch: Hooks in the JAVA script
for HTML documents
... updated the web page for publication status,
requirements
<fhirsch> issue-155?
<trackbot> ISSUE-155 -- Add AES-GCM to XML Encryption 1.1 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/155
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0030.html
fhirsch: Issue 155- Pratik made a proposal for this
<fhirsch> Suggest adding a reference to, e.g. NIST SP 800-38D
<fhirsch> AES-CBC
pdatta: AS-GSM for Suite B, HMAC
signature with AES, may be faster than doing them
separately
... Reviewed documents, TLS suggested use of AES-GSM,
requirements for Suite B, IV size is 96
... Authentication tag is a new item, should it be at the
beginning or end
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0037.html
fhirsch: how mature and stable is this? How long has it been around?
pdatta: Not sure how mature it is
<fhirsch> unmute bal
bal: This has been around a few
years, NIST listed it for AES, MS implements it for IPsec,
recommended for v1.2
... mature enough to be written into the IPsec RFC, I am not
sure we would loose anything if we didn't implement this as
mandatory, no concern for optional
fhirsch: would we be able to test for interop, is there an issue with the authentication tag location?
bal: not sure about the tag
location- will have to check with specification
... not in the position to do any interop testing now
<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to ask about crypto review
Thomas: Are we getting the necessary review of the new markup with regard to padding?
fhirsch: Pratik needs to explain some of the text and authentication tag
<fhirsch> tag discussion email from Pratik - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0041.html
pdatta: When you decrypt you
compare it to the authentication tag to verify that it was not
changed
... if the tag is after the IV, could be done after the cypher
text, you can encrypt and don't' have to put in the
authentication tag at the end
fhirsch: what is the motivation for this? May not have another version of the spec, requirement?
It would be conformant to Suite B IPsec implementations, but doesn't need to be optional
<fhirsch> reason to add would be to support Suite B
<fhirsch> we need to check
Specifically for IPsec though, not just SUite B
who is speaking
<scribe> ACTION: bal Check on Suite B AES-GSM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-450 - Check on Suite B AES-GSM [on Brian LaMacchia - due 2009-11-24].
bal: try to get an answer by next call- looking at the NSA page now, it mentions AES-GCM, but not a requirement specifically
<fhirsch> action-450?
<trackbot> ACTION-450 -- Brian LaMacchia to check on Suite B AES-GSM -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/450
<tlr> action-450?
<trackbot> ACTION-450 -- Brian LaMacchia to check on Suite B AES-GCM -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/450
fhirsch: If it is helpful, how do
we structure it? need to discuss it on the list, take a look at
the message sent on Dec 16, also tag size and location
... can anyone review this proposal for AES-GCM
<scribe> ACTION: bal Review the Pratik AES-GCM proposal with Magnus [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Review the Pratik AES-GCM proposal with Magnus [on Brian LaMacchia - due 2009-11-24].
fhirsch: do not want to delay
v1.1 last call too much longer
... Close to last call on DSIG v1.1, but not ENC v1.1
... Need to add and review the reference- action to Pratik
<fhirsch> issue-147?
<trackbot> ISSUE-147 -- XML Encryption 1.1 table of contents incomplete, some headings not numbered correctly in document -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/147
issue-147?
<trackbot> ISSUE-147 -- XML Encryption 1.1 table of contents incomplete, some headings not numbered correctly in document -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/147
<fhirsch> action-437?
<trackbot> ACTION-437 -- Frederick Hirsch to move sig/enc core 1.1 specs to respec; resolve ISSUE-147 as side effect -- due 2009-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/437
fhirsch: Working on this action
<fhirsch> still in progress
<fhirsch> issue-150?
<trackbot> ISSUE-150 -- Use of XML encryption type encoding in EXI -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/150
fhirsch: Thomas was working on this issue
<fhirsch> action-439?
<trackbot> ACTION-439 -- Thomas Roessler to draft text for xml encryption 1.1 for handing EXI -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/439
Thomas: reviewing section 4 of ENC v1.1, format specifications (parameter definitions) and client/application specific information
<fhirsch> Thomas will send email regarding this action and associated encryption concerns
fhirsch: need a more through review of XML ENC v1.1
I agree, it needs additional review
Thomas: basic point 4.1 and 4.2 processing model leads to difficult conformance tags
<fhirsch> gets confusing when you mix in EXI
Thomas: Section 4.3 has text regarding non-normative descriptions and is unclear
<fhirsch> tlr asks whether we should remove 4.3
Thomas: EXI issue, processing
model, need to refactor
... will send out an email with additional information and
clarification
fhirsch: The spec needs more review- any volunteers?
bal: I was involved with the initial implementation, but it was along time ago
Thomas: Does anyone remember implementing this?
<shivaram> I was there in the original XML Enc group, but, I don't remember :-(
<shivaram> We can ask Sean Mullan as he did the implementation for XML Enc
<scribe> ACTION: scott review the XML ENC v1.1 document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Review the XML ENC v1.1 document [on Scott Cantor - due 2009-11-24].
fhirsch: Need to be thorough in review before last call
issue-154
<fhirsch> issue-154?
<trackbot> ISSUE-154 -- Links to references need to be updated -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/154
<fhirsch> best practice http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0038.html
<esimon2> Wrt Frederick's question, Brian and I co-created the first strawman proposal of XML Encryption: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2000Aug/0001.html
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: aldrin Review XML ENC v1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-453 - Review XML ENC v1.1 [on Aldrin J D'Souza - due 2009-11-24].
<tlr> action-453?
<trackbot> ACTION-453 -- Aldrin J D'Souza to review XML ENC v1.1 -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/453
<tlr> action-453?
<trackbot> ACTION-453 -- Ed Simon to review XML ENC v1.1 -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/453
<fhirsch> 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
fhirsch: Back to Brian on this
<fhirsch> action-422?
<trackbot> ACTION-422 -- Cynthia Martin to propose wording to improve KEYINFO explanation -- due 2009-11-12 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/422
<fhirsch> action-442?
<trackbot> ACTION-442 -- Brian LaMacchia to propose text for RSA for Issue-82 (DSA already done) -- due 2009-11-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/442
fhirsch: leave action 422 open for now
<fhirsch> 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
<fhirsch> action-412?
<trackbot> ACTION-412 -- Ed Simon to review ISSUE-115 -- due 2009-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/412
<fhirsch> ed notes namespaces are not signed as part of SignedInfo
issue 115 is difficult- wrapping attack, complex issue
ed: was not able to produce the attack yet, the information to ID elements that is not signed, able to change the information and could be an attack, some work on this, time consuming to track down
fhirsch: attack is a difficult one Not sure if this is an issue against DSIG v1.1 and delay last call
ed: It should be fixed before DSIG v1.1 last call if this is a real attack vector
fhirsch: Can this be fixed in v2.0?
ed: required that the namespace be declared in the findinfo element, but it might break current applications because they use namespaces from elsewhere
what is the possible attack?
ed: you have an XPath you want to
sign, may specify an element with a namespace, the namespace is
not necessarily signed information, could substitute another
namespace, making the signature invalid
... This still concerns me, not sure if it is an issue
<fhirsch> scott notes could be issue for 1.1, 2.0 selection syntax and xpath filter
<fhirsch> scott notes this, if it is an issue
ed: General concern: using information that is not signed, could have a wrapping attack, would require alot of effort
fhirsch: cannot hold this indefinitely, need to go to last call
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to introduce Ed Simon and joerg Schwenk [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-454 - Introduce Ed Simon and joerg Schwenk [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-11-24].
scott: If this were an attack,
there would be others regarding namespace and what you sign and
don't sign
... This is harder to attack based on what you choose to
sign
fhirsch: Need to focus on v2.0 selection items also
ed: is it necessary to sign namespace declaration to prevent namespace wrapping attack?
fhirsch: Always a cost to protect everything
Thomas: Set up a meeting between Ed Simon and joerg Schwenk to discuss this attack
<fhirsch> action-254 university group working on signature could review threat
fhirsch: We cannot keep this indefinitely, need to make decisions on v1.1
<fhirsch> action-254 associated with issue-115 and action-412
fhirsch: Concerned that we have a generic issue, not a useful issue if it's too generic, need a more specific issue to work on
recommend closing issue-155 and create a new one with more details
ed: agree with closing the generic issue
fhirsch: Would like to close issue-115 and create a new one
x/- 155/- 115/
<fhirsch> issue: threat for signature from use of namespace prefixes with corresponding unsigned namespace declarations leading to wrapping like attacks
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-156 - Threat for signature from use of namespace prefixes with corresponding unsigned namespace declarations leading to wrapping like attacks ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/156/edit .
<fhirsch> issue-115 close
<fhirsch> issue-115 closed
<trackbot> ISSUE-115 XPath Filter Transform and Namespace Declarations for Qualified Nodes, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html closed
<tlr> ACTION-254 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-254 Add ISSUE-68 to agenda, follow up on bals proposal with editorial change to 1.1? closed
<tlr> whooops
<tlr> action-254?
<trackbot> ACTION-254 -- Frederick Hirsch to add ISSUE-68 to agenda, follow up on bals proposal with editorial change to 1.1? -- due 2009-04-13 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/254
<tlr> ignore me, I was confused
<tlr> action-454 done
<tlr> action-454 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-454 Introduce Ed Simon and joerg Schwenk closed
<fhirsch> issue-156 see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Apr/0025.html
<fhirsch> action-421?
<trackbot> ACTION-421 -- Ed Simon to look at the 1.1 schema -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/421
action-421?
<trackbot> ACTION-421 -- Ed Simon to look at the 1.1 schema -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/421
<fhirsch> action-421 review 1.1 RNG changes
ed: Send email out and he is fixing the RNG schema
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0044.html
<fhirsch> Makoto agreed that Ed's proposed change is correct and updated RNG schema
<fhirsch> "official RELAX NG schemas for XML digital signature"
fhirsch: Need help from Thomas on versions and process
<tlr> +1 to giving it some merit, but I'm pulling a blank on the versioning question
fhirsch: Many people are trying to use RNG schema, may be valuable to have an RNG schema v1.1
Thomas: Can we just add it to the spec?
RESOLUTION: Add the RNG schema to the v1.1 spec
<shivaram> +q
fhirsch: How do we do this properly (add the RNG schema)?
shivaram: Do we need to add the information to the requirements spec also?
fhirsch: Yes, we need to add this to the requirements
<tlr> q
<tlr> tlr: do we have a formal requirement for the xml schema?
<fhirsch> I believe requirement is to enable adoption and usability by adding RNG schema
<tlr> tlr: do we have a formal requirement for the xml schema?
<tlr> tlr: do we have a formal requirement for the xml schema?
Thomas: do we want to add the RNG schema, we don't say anything about the XML schema requirements
<tlr> tlr: mention both or none
fhirsch: You are right, we don't mention XML schema, may be a non-issue
<fhirsch> we do not speak to xml schema in the 1.1 requirements document
<shivaram> But, we do have normative references to XML Schema spec in the docs
<fhirsch> do mention principle of being compatible with xml environment
<tlr> shivaram, so we include one to RNG
fhirsch: important to enable RNG schema and would need to mention it in the specs
<shivaram> may be create a action to create the same
<scribe> ACTION: fhirsch Review plans for RNG schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - fhirsch
<scribe> ACTION: fhirsch Review plans for RNG schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - fhirsch
<tlr> ACTION: frederick to review plans for RNG schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-455 - Review plans for RNG schema [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-11-24].
<fhirsch> action-431?
<trackbot> ACTION-431 -- Thomas Roessler to fix "they" in RFC2119 section throughout all documents -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/431
<tlr> (I did it in passing for one spec)
<fhirsch> issue-91?
<trackbot> ISSUE-91 -- ECC can't be REQUIRED -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/91
MY FAVORITE!
fhirsch: Can we share the message on this call?
<tlr> s/member://
Thomas: Will talk to Rigo about it, don't just share it
fhirsch: Status, still
on-going
... Requirements need to match the specs
<shivaram> I am working on that - Action-482
<fhirsch> action-482?
<trackbot> ACTION-482 does not exist
Thomas: Conversations on EXI and DSIG, canonicalization and parameter settings
<fhirsch> s/Converstations/Conversations/
Thomas: Do we want to cover this issue between the groups before v1.1 last call?
<shivaram> Actio-438
<shivaram> I stand corrected
Action-438?
<trackbot> ACTION-438 -- Shivaram Mysore to check 1.1 requirements against enc, sig EDs -- due 2009-11-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/438
Thomas: What is the cut off for new features in v1.1? What is the interest, if not on the critical path?
fhirsch: what do the WG members think? Would have liked to do the cut off for last call at the F2F
Thomas: Would need someone who
understands EXI and ENC to help work on this and then review
it
... What aboutlast week of November
fhirsch: It would be better if it
were next week to allow for review
... Nov 30 is a hard deadline, earlier is better, decision on
Dec 8, publication after
<fhirsch> editorial actions complete by the 14 dec
<fhirsch> publish before 18th meaning 17th absolute latest publication request
s/publisch/publish/
<fhirsch> 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
<fhirsch> action-436?
<trackbot> ACTION-436 -- Thomas Roessler to review requirements for issue-63 text -- due 2009-11-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/436
<tlr> action ongoing
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
fhirsch: Thomas is still reviewing these
<fhirsch> issue-9?
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Review WS-I BSP constraints on DSig -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/9
<fhirsch> action-386?
<trackbot> ACTION-386 -- Hal Lockhart to look at WS-I BSP constraints on DSig -- due 2009-10-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/386
<G-Edgar> There is a new BSP 1.1 dated October 2009
<fhirsch> action-441?
<trackbot> ACTION-441 -- Cynthia Martin 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 -- due 2009-11-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/441
Yes, by next week
<fhirsch> issue-149?
<trackbot> ISSUE-149 -- Link requirements to features -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/149
<fhirsch> action-438?
<trackbot> ACTION-438 -- Shivaram Mysore to check 1.1 requirements against enc, sig EDs -- due 2009-11-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/438
<G-Edgar> BSP 1.1 http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1-BdAD.html
<shivaram> yes
<shivaram> later this week
fhirsch: publish the requirements
sooner than later, by December
... Anything else on the requirements we need to review
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2009Nov/0010.html
fhirsch: Working with Juan Carlos to perform interop testing
I am still looking for implementations for interop testing
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2009Nov/0008.html
fhirsch: Any additional discussions on this email?
<csolc> * chris
fhirsch: MQQ considerations?
I have been asked to review it and am looking at it now
<fhirsch> I suggest wg members review this and we consider for 2.0
fhirsch: This may be valuable and needs to be reviewed
It doesn't make sense to add it to v1.1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2009Nov/0004.html
<fhirsch> Sean shared paper
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2009Nov/0004.html
<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0046.html link to paper
<fhirsch> actual link to paper
<fhirsch> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/papers/TFCFirmasdigitalesenXML-11-10-2007.pdf
sean: Paper is written in
Spanish, should take a look at it
... It is an FYI, could be useful
I haven't done it yet
<fhirsch> ACTION-447?
<trackbot> ACTION-447 -- Cynthia Martin to review wrapping attack article, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2009Nov/0019.html -- due 2009-11-17 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/447
I wasn't sure if we are reviewing it to add information to the v2.0 spec
<fhirsch> scott notes concern of strengthening id based references
<esimon2> tlr or fjh, unmute me
<esimon2> pls!
<fhirsch> ACTION: scott to review workshop papers regarding strengthening id based references with respect to wrapping attacks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/17-xmlsec-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-456 - Review workshop papers regarding strengthening id based references with respect to wrapping attacks [on Scott Cantor - due 2009-11-24].
ed: The paper is similar to other papers regarding wrapping attacks
<G-Edgar> I am still on the ohone
<esimon2> can you hear me now?
<tlr> ed, you might be muted locally
Put it in the chat and someone can read it out
<tlr> ed isn't muted
<tlr> gerald is
<esimon2> My phone is not muted, just go on without me.
<fhirsch> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/open
fhirsch: There are alot of edits from the IRC chat from the F2F, Thomas worked on correcting those
action 425?
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<fhirsch> ction-425?
action-425?
<trackbot> ACTION-425 -- Sean Mullan to indicate sources of implementaitons -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/425
<fhirsch> action-425?
<trackbot> ACTION-425 -- Sean Mullan to indicate sources of implementaitons -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<tlr> action-425?
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/425
<trackbot> ACTION-425 -- Sean Mullan to indicate sources of implementaitons -- due 2009-11-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/425
mullen: I was going to send information on old implementations for performance baseline, the information was only sent to Pratik
<fhirsch> action-425 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-425 Indicate sources of implementaitons closed
fhirsch: The information needs to be sent to the members list so it can be closed
action-405?
<trackbot> ACTION-405 -- Thomas Roessler to update xml signature 1.0 errata page with proposed text -- due 2009-11-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/405
<fhirsch> action-405?
<trackbot> ACTION-405 -- Thomas Roessler to update xml signature 1.0 errata page with proposed text -- due 2009-11-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/405
Thomas: Will discharge it or send email for additional clarification
<fhirsch> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/open
<mullan> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Implementations
<esimon2> I'm fine with closing the 1.1 nodeset actions pertaining to me; for me to complete them would require delving into implementations and I doubt that the time to do so is worth the results.
fhirsch: Any other business other than actions and issues, I will not be at the next meeting
<fhirsch> action-425 see http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/wiki/Implementations
nope
fhirsch: Adjourned
ok, let me unmute
ok, thanks
-Cynthia