<trackbot> Date: 04 September 2012

<virginie> any volunteer for scribing ?

Welcome

<wseltzer> scribenick: karen_

<wseltzer> scribe: karen

<virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/08/27-crypto-minutes.html

Virginie: approve 8/27 minutes
... objective: review draft API
... review actions, not issues

agenda approved

Draft API review

<virginie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0420.html

Ryan: responded most of the feedbacks

<virginie> draft is available http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/WebCryptoAPI/

<wseltzer> [rsleevi reviews some of the changes listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0420.html ]

<markw> +1

Virginie: Thank you Ryan!

<arunranga> Solid +1

+1

<JimD> +1

<asad> +1

Virginie: anyone frustrated?

<vgb> +1

<rsleevi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0400.html

<mitchz> +

Mark: a used case that I provided last week is not included. Hope to be included.

<mitchz> +1

Ryan: sent feedback in email.

<rsleevi> Sorry, feedback was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0399.html

Ryan: Didn't have chance to agree on text

<wseltzer> virginie: any objection to including Netflix use case?

<mitchz> +1

<wseltzer> (+1 = no objection)

<virginie> +1

<wseltzer> (-1 if objection)

<JimD> +1

<vgb> +1

<asad> +1

virginie: no objection. can proceed to include netflix use case.

<wtc> I have a question about the purpose of use cases in the API draft, which is why I couldn't vote,

Mark: can work on it today. can work with Ryan.

wtc: purpose of the use case is not clear to me

<mitchz> didn't hear the question

<mitchz> Wan-Teh, your phone is breaking up a bit

<vgb> W3C text on what FPWD means: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#first-wd

<wseltzer> wtc: proposes face-to-face discussion among rsleevi, wtc, Netflix

wtc: communications through email are inefficient. Suggest F2F meeting to clearify.
... does not need to wait for the w3c meeting

Virginie: we can have conference call dedicated to certain subject

<JimD> an action committee, of sorts... a conference call perhaps outside normal hours?

Virginie: as long as you report to the group, no problem for f2f meeting

Ryan: should we mention names?

Virginie: we should typically not mention company names.

Ryan: once in the use cases, the API needs to support it.

<JimD> initial inclusion of use cases does not mean they'll be in the final version

Ryan: we have open issues for API to workout.

<JimD> likewise, there may be other use cases that may be added later

Wendy: we are guided by the charter. It is good to have use cases even if the current API does not support yet. We are free to make further choices

Mark: agree with Virginie and Wendy.
... use cases intending for API to support. If or not API supporting depends on what we work out.

asad: thank editors
... comment on 5.4

<JimD> asad, well said

asad: even current API does not support discover of keys, hope the API still intend to do

Ryan: there are a few editorial changes to be made

Wendy: public review process include making sure public url work out

mitch: where we go for example code?
... do we decide spin out another document?

Virginie: that's an action allocate to Asad

<arunranga> FWIW a FPWD should have some sample code.

asad: for sample code, Ryan has pointed out the sample code should be after api stablized

virginie: can you live with without a sample code?

mitch: may be.

Ryan: similar as use cases, we may start wiki for sample code to address use cases
... I don't know we are at the point to put it in the api doc

<ddahl> rsleevi: we can also write the code in the github and embed it into the wiki so it looks nice

virginie: arun, do you want to comment?

<rsleevi> Note: I was not advocating for FPWD that we do samples

arun: it is useful to have some illustrative code
... generally it is a good idea to have a sample code in the draft

virginie: if include sample code, we can delay for a week or sample code will come later
... any opinion?
... anyone can write sample code in one week?

David: I can do it.

virginie: it is more reasonable to delay one week to add sample code

<JimD> +1

+

<mitchz> +1

+1

<virginie> +1

<asad> +1

<selfissued> +1

<arunranga> +1

<ddahl> +1

<wseltzer> Proposal: FPWD next week, not this

<vgb> +1

virginie: okay, we postpone one week

<scribe> ACTION: David writes sample code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, ambiguous username (more than one match) - David

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ddahl3, dmcgrew, drogers2, dhooley)

<wseltzer> ACTION: ddahl3 to write some sample code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/04-crypto-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Write some sample code [on David Dahl - due 2012-09-11].

virginie: we are done with the draft api

3- Action status – 5’

issue 16 and 20

<virginie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0402.html

<wseltzer> ISSUE-16

<wseltzer> ISSUE-16?

<trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Definition for Key Expiration -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/16

Ryan: propose to remove it and to have applications to handle it.

<vgb> +1

<wseltzer> Proposal: close ISSUE 16

<rsleevi> +1

<wtc> +1 on removing startDate/endDate

virginie: objection to close it?

<ddahl> +1

<JimD> +1

<asad> +1

+1

<cjkula> +1

<virginie> +1

<mitchz> +1

<wseltzer> +1

<wseltzer> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-16

resolution: close issue 16

<wseltzer> ISSUE-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- What are the requirements and the possible technical solution(s) to control the storage of key and associated attributes -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/20

<rsleevi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0401.html - proposed text

<rsleevi> (or lack of text)

<wseltzer> Proposal: Close ISSUE-20

<rsleevi> +1

<wtc> +1. The spec shuld not overspecify how implementations store key attributes.

<ddahl> +1

<vgb> +1

<JimD> +1

<cjkula> +1

<mitchz> +1

<wseltzer> +1

resolved: close issue 20

review actions

<virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/pendingreview

virginie: action 16 - delay after first public working draft

<wseltzer> trackbot, close ISSUE-20

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 What are the requirements and the possible technical solution(s) to control the storage of key and associated attributes closed

<wseltzer> trackbot, close ISSUE-16

<trackbot> ISSUE-16 Definition for Key Expiration closed

virginie: action 22 - key import/export - need more discussions

<wseltzer> trackbot, close ACTION-22

<trackbot> ACTION-22 And cjkula to describe key import/export functionality closed

virginie: action 32 - issue 14 to be discussed

open actions

<virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/open

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: please indicate on the mailing list if you think the action should be closed

4- Group Life – 15’

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: topic: group life

<virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Gathering_public_comment_for_FPWD

virginie: wiki - any member can edit
... need to decide where to send the public draft
... change the use of conf call.
... comments from members: too much emails to go through. May have 40 min conf call to discuss specific topics

ryan: support real time communication
... concern is - participant may not fully express their concern due to missing calls or other reasons
... if we do this, we need solid scribers

virginie: we need material to discuss before the conf call
... suggest to try

wendy: rrsagent, pointer? gives timestamped minute

virginie: next conf call talk about first public draft

<virginie> thanks karen for scribing

<wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf