See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2010
+Aldrin_DSouza
<fjh> ScribeNick: aldrin
<fjh> unmute Gerald-e
<fjh> Call for Exclusions, XML Signature 1.1 and XML Signature Properties
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2010Feb/0011.html
<fjh> Last Call Announcement
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0007.html
<fjh> tlr will send announcement to ietf re last call, frederick to other external parties
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to announce last call outside w3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-513 - Announce last call outside w3 [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-02-16].
<jcruella> hi everybody, just entered the call
<fjh> ACTION: tlr to remind RIM/Certicom of Last Call time period [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-514 - Remind RIM/Certicom of Last Call time period [on Thomas Roessler - due 2010-02-16].
<tlr> action-514 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-514 Remind RIM/Certicom of Last Call time period closed
<jcruella> yes...May would be good time
<fjh> cynthia: notes we need to know who is implementing before f2f
<fjh> formal deadline is 8 wks before meeting to annoucement
<csolc> * Can't go
can't go.
<scantor> can't go
<Cynthia> I can attend if I know well in advance
<shivaram> I can't go either
<Gerald-e> unknown
<Gerald-e> approval is unknown
<bal> i think it's really going to depend on what sort of comments we get out of the LC process
<bal> or if we're in CR before the meeting and get official LC comments
<fjh> agree that depends on last call comments
<fjh> not in favor of extended phone call - does not work for various time zones
<Cynthia> People tend to multi-task on extended phone calls
<Gerald-e> +1 about mutitasking
<tlr> Well, it's a matter of self-discipline, re multitasking. People have a choice about it.
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/02-xmlsec-minutes.html
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2010Feb/att-0013/minutes-2010-02-02.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 2nd Feb Approved
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0009.html
<fjh> ISSUE-186?
<trackbot> ISSUE-186 -- What is the normative content of section 5.4.2? (PBKDF2) -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/186
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0013.html
<tlr> sounds good to me
<Cynthia> can we reference the schema instead
<fjh> Aldrin suggests copying material into the XML Encryption 1.1 spec
<fjh> bal asks why pkcs docs cannot be referenced
<fjh> bal notes we reference SECG
<fjh> tlr notes have used ietf references for all pkcs work to date
<fjh> tlr concerned about change control issue
<fjh> tlr notes markup is the issue
<fjh> tlr refers to w3c policy, to use w3.org namespaces unless good reason
<fjh> bal summarizes - want w3 specs to have control over xml markup/schema, while SECG is limited to algorithms
RESOLUTION: copy schema From PKCS amendment to XML Encryption 1.1
<scribe> ACTION: aldrin to propose the schema addition for issue-186 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-515 - Propose the schema addition for issue-186 [on Aldrin J D'Souza - due 2010-02-16].
<tlr> issue-510?
<trackbot> ISSUE-510 does not exist
<fjh> action-510?
<trackbot> ACTION-510 -- Pratik Datta to propose explanation of use of content vs. element in implementations -- due 2010-02-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/510
<fjh> issue-180?
<trackbot> ISSUE-180 -- Section 8 identifies Joseph Reagle as the contact for the XML Encryption media type. This needs to be updated, perhaps to a generic identity? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/180
<tlr> action-511 due next week
<trackbot> ACTION-511 Propose next steps on media type registration (ISSUE-180) due date now next week
<fjh> action-=502?
<fjh> action-502?
<trackbot> ACTION-502 -- Scott Cantor to propose new model for RetrievalMethod in 2.0 -- due 2010-01-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/actions/502
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0006.html
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0005.html
<fjh> issue-161?
<trackbot> ISSUE-161 -- Should the RetrievalMethod schema error be fixed in 2.0, see note at end of http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core-11/Overview.htm#sec-RetrievalMethod -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/161
<fjh> issue-182?
<trackbot> ISSUE-182 -- Need Retrieval Method proposal for 2.0, KeyInfo correction or continuation of original material -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/182
<fjh> issue-183?
<trackbot> ISSUE-183 -- Constrain 2.0 SignedInfo canonicalization choice for 2.0 model? -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/track/issues/183
<fjh> two open issues, Type and URI syntax
<fjh> scott notes raw certs are issue related to Type
<fjh> scott suggests KeyInfoReference to reference key info, use RetrievalMethod for certs
<fjh> +1 to clarity of purpose
<fjh> scott proposes dropping Type
<fjh> +1 to eliminating optionality where possible
<Cynthia> +1
<fjh> revised proposal is to define new element, without Type, and retain RetrievalMethod for other uses (non KeyInfo element cases)
<fjh> tlr asks if this is 2.0, 1.1. material or elsewhere
<fjh> separate document for 1.1 is possibillity
<fjh> enter last call comment, with proposal
<fjh> +1 to last call comment for this
<fjh> would require short last call on the addition.
<fjh> scott notes this would be used in metadocuments
<fjh> scott has use case
<fjh> general group consensus on adding new element to 1.1 as last call comment
<fjh> discussion of uri, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec/2010Feb/0005.html
<fjh> tlr notes comments do not matter for keyinfo
<fjh> +1 same constraints in 1.1 and 2.0 version of new element
<fjh> tlr suggests saying URI is processed as a Reference, which would differ in 1.1 and 2.0
<fjh> ACTION: scantor to make last call comment and proposed change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-516 - Make last call comment and proposed change [on Scott Cantor - due 2010-02-16].
<fjh> proposed resolution: WG agrees to KeyInfoReference proposal from Scott, removing Type, allowing continued use of RetrievalMethod for other purposes, and referencing Reference for URI processing
RESOLUTION: WG agrees to KeyInfoReference proposal from Scott, removing Type, allowing continued use of RetrievalMethod for other purposes, and referencing Reference for URI processing
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2010Jan/0014.html
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2010Jan/0015.html
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec/2010Jan/0016.html
<fjh> this is another case of defining schema in W3C
<fjh> fjh notes that this is support for Widget Signatures, a different use case
<fjh> tlr suggests modifying abstract to indicate purpose of mobile code signing
<tlr> jcc: concern about overlap between xmldsig-properties and XAdES
<tlr> ... worry about adding more and more overlapping properties in the future
<fjh> It seems that XAdES addresses a clear problem that is broader, and not confused with this properties document, that is small and focused toward different case.
<tlr> tlr: perhaps call out the specific mobile code signing use case (which this is intended for) in the Abstract?
<fjh> This document defines schema for use in widget signing, without addressing the semantics or details of XAdES which is much broader.
<fjh> We also have to address the need of Widget Signature to minimize references and complexity of those references
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmldsig-properties-20100204/
<fjh> we can add text to the intro referencing XAdES and noting its appropriate use, also note re mobile case in abstract
<fjh> next step, share in XMLSec WG list
<fjh> then jcc get feedback from community re this text and link to document
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to provide proposed update to Signature Properties document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-517 - Provide proposed update to Signature Properties document [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2010-02-16].
<fjh> ACTION: jcc to draft email and check with tlr regarding it before sending [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-518 - Draft email and check with tlr regarding it before sending [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2010-02-16].
<fjh> jcc notes New ETSI standards for PDF signatures using XML SIgnatures
<fjh> jcc notes did not receive any use cases
<fjh> jcc CMS being used, apart from XML Forms
<Cynthia> is this the spec we are discussing: http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.2.2/ts_101903v010202p.pdf
<jcruella> http://stf364ms.e.ac.upc.edu/phpmyfaq/
<jcruella> faq on PAdES
<jcruella> PDF Advanced Electronic Signatures
<Cynthia> got it thanks
<tlr> http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.4.1/
<jcruella> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/101900_101999/101903/01.04.01_60/ts_101903v010401p.pdf
<Cynthia> it works, thanks
<jcruella> bye