IRC log of crypto on 2012-12-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #crypto
14:56:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:56:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #crypto
14:56:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
14:56:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
14:56:57 [trackbot]
Date: 10 December 2012
14:56:58 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:58 [wseltzer]
hi virginie
14:57:07 [wseltzer]
Chair: Virginie
14:57:09 [mountie]
14:57:17 [Zakim]
SEC_WebCryp()10:00AM has now started
14:57:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.335.aaaa
14:57:26 [virginie]
agenda ?
14:57:33 [virginie]
agenda+ welcome
14:57:39 [Zakim]
14:57:58 [virginie]
agenda+ Web Crypto API editor's draft recent version
14:58:06 [wseltzer]
zakim, aaaa is Nat_Sakimura
14:58:06 [Zakim]
+Nat_Sakimura; got it
14:58:12 [virginie]
agenda+ use cases editor's draft recent version
14:58:37 [virginie]
agenda+ new specification key discovery draft
14:58:55 [virginie]
agenda+ next steps (WD, call, F2F)
14:59:45 [mountie]
agenda ?
15:00:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.458.aabb
15:00:42 [markw]
markw has joined #crypto
15:00:43 [wseltzer]
zakim, aabb is Scott_Kelly
15:00:43 [Zakim]
+Scott_Kelly; got it
15:00:45 [ddahl]
ddahl has joined #crypto
15:00:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.303.543.aacc
15:01:03 [zooko]
zooko has joined #crypto
15:01:06 [zooko]
15:01:18 [wseltzer]
zakim, aacc is zooko
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+zooko; got it
15:01:23 [Zakim]
15:01:34 [wseltzer]
15:01:35 [ddahl]
hi zooko
15:01:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.257.aadd
15:01:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.867.aaee
15:01:48 [markw]
Zakim, aaee is markw
15:01:48 [Zakim]
+markw; got it
15:02:00 [virginie]
zakim, who is on the phone ?
15:02:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nat_Sakimura, Wendy, Scott_Kelly, zooko, ddahl, +1.512.257.aadd, markw
15:02:19 [wseltzer]
zakim, aadd is virginie
15:02:19 [Zakim]
+virginie; got it
15:02:25 [Zakim]
15:02:36 [virginie]
zakim, who is on the phone ?
15:02:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nat_Sakimura, Wendy, Scott_Kelly, zooko, ddahl, virginie, markw, arunranga
15:02:44 [arunranga]
arunranga has joined #crypto
15:02:58 [arunranga]
Zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Nat_Sakimura, Wendy, Scott_Kelly, zooko, ddahl, virginie, markw, arunranga
15:03:04 [zooko]
Hi ddahl
15:03:27 [Zakim]
15:03:37 [Zakim]
+ +47.40.22.aaff
15:03:48 [arunranga]
Use Cases document in HG:
15:04:10 [pal]
pal has joined #crypto
15:04:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.525.aagg
15:04:23 [Zakim]
15:04:31 [pal]
zakim, i am aagg
15:04:31 [Zakim]
+pal; got it
15:04:39 [wseltzer]
zakim, aaff is Havard_Molland
15:04:39 [Zakim]
+Havard_Molland; got it
15:04:55 [arunranga]
zakim, mute me
15:04:55 [Zakim]
arunranga should now be muted
15:06:14 [mountie]
I'm at home. not available to use voice
15:07:26 [Zakim]
+ +
15:07:27 [wseltzer]
virginie: Thanks to people for making the effort to join this call, especially US folks for whom it's early, Asia for whom it's late
15:07:44 [virginie]
15:07:53 [mountie]
zakim, i am mountie
15:07:53 [Zakim]
sorry, mountie, I do not see a party named 'mountie'
15:08:05 [wseltzer]
zakim, aahh is mountie
15:08:05 [Zakim]
+mountie; got it
15:08:18 [mountie]
zakim, i am aahh
15:08:18 [Zakim]
sorry, mountie, I do not see a party named 'aahh'
15:08:28 [wseltzer]
15:08:57 [Zakim]
15:09:10 [wseltzer]
zakim, ??P45 is Alex_Russell
15:09:10 [Zakim]
+Alex_Russell; got it
15:09:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.343.aaii
15:09:37 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
15:09:41 [wseltzer]
zakim, aaii is karen
15:09:41 [Zakim]
+karen; got it
15:10:06 [virginie]
15:10:21 [wseltzer]
virginie: any objection to previous minutes? Approved.
15:10:40 [wseltzer]
Topic: Use Cases
15:10:42 [arunranga]
zakim unmute me
15:10:48 [Karen_]
Karen_ has joined #crypto
15:10:50 [wseltzer]
virginie: Arun, can you introduce the use cases?
15:10:54 [arunranga]
zakim, unmute me
15:10:54 [Zakim]
arunranga should no longer be muted
15:11:08 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #crypto
15:11:17 [wseltzer]
15:11:20 [markw]
I know, sorry!
15:11:28 [hhalpin]
Zakim, what's the code?
15:11:28 [Zakim]
the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, hhalpin
15:11:36 [wseltzer]
arunranga: Still chasing down a few people, including Mark, to give a bit more from a Netflix perspective.
15:11:45 [wseltzer]
... Goal is to give use cases, show sample code.
15:11:58 [wseltzer]
... Got lots of good feedback from Facebook, a real-world use-case.
15:12:08 [Zakim]
15:12:14 [wseltzer]
... Questions still remain, such as whether we can do better with HMAC.
15:12:15 [hhalpin]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is hhalpin
15:12:15 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
15:12:25 [wseltzer]
... Good feedback from Tantek, who wants to use public keys.
15:12:44 [wseltzer]
... If all follow up with me, we can have a draft by mid-week for heartbeat.
15:12:57 [wseltzer]
virginie: questions for Arun?
15:13:19 [wseltzer]
... as you can see: banking transactions, video services, code sanctity, encrypted communications
15:14:02 [wseltzer]
arunranga: nobody should be misled by the fact that I may have used Korean names, not a one-to-one match with S. Korea
15:14:14 [wseltzer]
... tried to construct the use-case around mountie's email
15:14:35 [hhalpin]
did we test to get consent to publish?
15:14:51 [wseltzer]
virginie: people who need to provide arun with additional details, please have a close look
15:15:21 [wseltzer]
... we are trying to get this published at next heartbeat, WG consensus to go forward for publication on 17 Dec.
15:15:32 [hhalpin]
So everyone has a deadline to read it by the 17th :)
15:15:36 [zooko]
15:15:37 [wseltzer]
... Any objection to having the spec go for publication 17 Dec?
15:15:38 [hhalpin]
15:15:46 [virginie]
15:15:54 [ddahl]
15:15:55 [wseltzer]
[+1 = no objection]
15:16:20 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:16:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, Scott_Kelly, zooko, ddahl, virginie, markw, arunranga, Havard_Molland, pal, Nat_Sakimura, mountie, Alex_Russell, karen, hhalpin
15:16:23 [mountie]
15:16:28 [pal]
15:16:56 [hhalpin]
Just this one for now
15:16:57 [wseltzer]
pal: is this publication of this spec alone, or others?
15:17:09 [hhalpin]
although we hope to publish all three (API, Mark's document, use-cases) in the next heartbeat
15:17:13 [wseltzer]
virginie: To start, I asked just about the Use Cases.
15:17:31 [wseltzer]
... I'd like to get consensus for publication of each separately.
15:17:46 [wseltzer]
pal: Recommend asking the question specifically so people know what they're approving.
15:18:02 [wseltzer]
virginie: Any objection to having Use Cases doc published 17 Dec?
15:18:08 [wseltzer]
pal: no objection
15:18:14 [wseltzer]
ack pal
15:18:29 [wseltzer]
virginie: great, we'll go forward with the use cases on 17 Dec
15:18:52 [wseltzer]
arunranga: Main goal is to produce primary, achievable use cases, that the API as it's emerging in draft can accomplish
15:18:59 [markw]
15:19:00 [wseltzer]
... not secondary use cases
15:19:05 [hhalpin]
Its OK to list secondary use-cases as long as they are clearly marked as "secondary" and without consensus.
15:19:18 [wseltzer]
virginie: Did you make any statement re relation between WebCryptoAPI and use cases?
15:19:50 [wseltzer]
arunranga: I'd be happy to take feedback and add a note to that effect.
15:20:10 [wseltzer]
ACTION: virginie to propose language on relation between WebCryptoAPI and use cases
15:20:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-70 - Propose language on relation between WebCryptoAPI and use cases [on Virginie GALINDO - due 2012-12-17].
15:20:32 [wseltzer]
virginie: The way you're writing this, we could later add new secondary features
15:20:45 [wseltzer]
arunranga: yes
15:20:59 [wseltzer]
15:21:03 [wseltzer]
ack markw
15:21:05 [hhalpin]
ack markw
15:21:19 [markw]
15:21:24 [wseltzer]
markw: Clarify that use cases should be able to include pre-provisioned keys?
15:21:46 [wseltzer]
arunranga: yes, we can include pre-provisioned keys. Looking to you (markw) for detail
15:22:10 [wseltzer]
... we can include a caveat that this particular feature may not be included in the WebCryptoAPI yet, but members of the WG are actively discussing
15:22:39 [wseltzer]
markw: I don't consider it a secondary use case. It should either be published in the main draft or in the additional doc we're working on.
15:22:48 [wseltzer]
15:23:11 [arunranga]
zakim, mute me
15:23:11 [Zakim]
arunranga should now be muted
15:23:25 [wseltzer]
virginie: I'm sure you're all aware of how Mark came to prepare new specification on key discovery
15:23:54 [Nat]
Nat has joined #crypto
15:23:58 [wseltzer]
... how to identify keys that may be pre-provisioned, so separate document.
15:24:08 [markw]
15:24:17 [Zakim]
15:24:21 [wseltzer]
... is there any problem or objection, or anyone who'd like to help Mark?
15:24:28 [wseltzer]
ack markw
15:24:48 [wseltzer]
markw: The intent is that this spec will have the same timeframe and Rec status as the main API
15:24:48 [Zakim]
15:25:15 [Zakim]
15:25:18 [hhalpin]
15:25:23 [wseltzer]
... either we should publish this at the same time as the main API loses support for pre-provisioned keys, so it's an atomic change
15:25:39 [wseltzer]
... when writing the new draft, only included suppor tfor origin named pre-provisioned keys.
15:25:50 [_nat]
_nat has joined #crypto
15:25:53 [wseltzer]
... no reason it couldn't include others, so the timeframe is not impacted
15:25:55 [arunranga]
Link to draft?
15:25:58 [rsleevi_]
rsleevi_ has joined #crypto
15:26:01 [rsleevi_]
15:26:03 [wseltzer]
... added some material on privacy, based on indexdb document
15:26:14 [virginie]
Key discovery specification proposal
15:26:24 [hhalpin]
I'll work on this after the phone call
15:26:25 [wseltzer]
... Attached document to email because couldn't yet get it into hg tree
15:26:30 [hhalpin]
its possible there's an issue re permissions
15:26:54 [wseltzer]
virginie: when you say we're publishing at the same time, do you mean heartbeat or more formal steps?
15:27:00 [wseltzer]
markw: I mean for the heartbeat.
15:27:07 [hhalpin]
i.e. by Dec 17th
15:27:10 [wseltzer]
... can we do it this time?
15:27:26 [wseltzer]
virginie: I have no problem putting them on the same track. Will we be ready for 17 Dec?
15:27:48 [arunranga]
notes rsleevi is on the q
15:27:49 [wseltzer]
virginie: question for the group, who has something to say about new spec? any objection to publishing?
15:27:57 [hhalpin]
ack hhalpin
15:27:57 [hhalpin]
15:28:06 [rsleevi_]
15:28:07 [hhalpin]
15:28:16 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi_
15:28:23 [wseltzer]
i/virginie: I'm sure you're all/Topic: New Spec Key Discovery/
15:28:49 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: My suggestion would be to keep different forms of key discovery in different specs, for what implementers need.
15:29:05 [wseltzer]
... Mark's approach is good, useful to implementers interested in that functionality.
15:29:18 [hhalpin]
15:29:20 [wseltzer]
... There are technical concerns, but no reason not to publish the draft.
15:29:28 [wseltzer]
virginie: thanks
15:29:31 [wseltzer]
ack hhalpin
15:29:51 [wseltzer]
hhalpin: We can release multiple docs in the heartbeat.
15:30:02 [wseltzer]
... We need to specify when we release whether we expect them to be normative.
15:30:14 [wseltzer]
... And we'll say with Mark's doc that we expect it will be normative.
15:30:31 [wseltzer]
... Both API and Key Discovery will have to go through the same process.
15:30:44 [wseltzer]
... To become W3C recs, they need implementation, testing, vote from W3C AC
15:31:07 [wseltzer]
... let's send both docs down the normative track. Try to keep them to the same schedule
15:31:18 [wseltzer]
virginie: +1 to what harry said.
15:31:20 [hhalpin]
Just to make sure W3C process is clear here
15:31:39 [wseltzer]
... Mark, anything more we need before publication?
15:31:44 [hhalpin]
its OK to publish drafty things
15:31:59 [wseltzer]
markw: I expect comments over the week, but don't see any problem with going ahead.
15:32:32 [wseltzer]
virginie: Any further comments? We'll go through formal process to approve pub next week.
15:32:41 [wseltzer]
... Thanks Mark for doing this quickly.
15:33:03 [wseltzer]
... Thanks both Ryan and Mark for working on docs.
15:33:11 [wseltzer]
Topic: Web Crypto API
15:33:28 [rsleevi_]
15:33:32 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: obviously lots of changes.
15:33:52 [wseltzer]
... most of the focus is trying to resolve usability issues, tighten up API
15:34:01 [wseltzer]
... total 22 changes, some more significant than others.
15:34:12 [wseltzer]
... Highlighting: removal of key storage and key attributes.
15:34:21 [wseltzer]
... keystorage has been discussed at length on ml.
15:34:34 [wseltzer]
... intent to add text highlighting key discovery elsewhere.
15:35:13 [wseltzer]
... Key attributes, tightly coupled with notion of key storage
15:35:26 [wseltzer]
... e.g. if something is stored on a smartcard, attributes might change without the user agent
15:35:42 [wseltzer]
... exposing attribs as persistent not a good fit.
15:35:51 [Zakim]
15:36:08 [wseltzer]
... so instead, make just the core functions of the key are attribs; others are stored where you store the key.
15:36:35 [wseltzer]
... application-specific or advisory attribs should be defined along with how you get the key from storage.
15:36:42 [wseltzer]
... e.g. synchronous, handles, etc.
15:36:55 [wseltzer]
... Concat added as an algorithm.
15:37:11 [wseltzer]
... Another change, overall workflow.
15:37:32 [wseltzer]
... earlier draft closer to PKCS11. init, process... , complete
15:37:45 [wseltzer]
... intent to share the objects, but implementers had concern it was too specific.
15:38:12 [wseltzer]
... explicit initialization step removed.
15:38:25 [wseltzer]
... that also removes the recyclability of crypto ops.
15:38:54 [wseltzer]
... added ability to supply data to be processed in call, e.g. hashing
15:39:12 [wseltzer]
... those are some of the major changes.
15:39:25 [wseltzer]
... easiest way to see them in practice is to look at examples doc.
15:39:41 [wseltzer]
... process data flow and state machine transition simplified for both developer and implementer.
15:39:49 [wseltzer]
virginie: Any questions for Ryan?
15:39:50 [hhalpin]
15:39:50 [markw]
15:39:58 [arunranga]
15:40:33 [wseltzer]
hhalpin: sounds sensible. 2 Qs: what did we do re zooko's questions on taxonomy of labeling?
15:40:41 [wseltzer]
... did we have any usability feedback?
15:41:20 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: taxonomy label distinct from security considerations.
15:41:20 [slightlyoff]
I have provided some feedback to rsleevi_ in private mail
15:41:31 [wseltzer]
... didn't think the taxonomy was a good fit.
15:41:36 [hhalpin]
The taxonomy wasn't accepted I remember, but checking on security considerations
15:41:40 [zooko]
15:41:44 [wseltzer]
... Security considerations have not yet been incorporated.
15:41:54 [wseltzer]
... focus this time was usability.
15:42:07 [wseltzer]
hhalpin: we might want to have security considerations in this round.
15:42:12 [rsleevi_]
Security considerations will not happen in next ED
15:42:17 [slightlyoff]
in particular, I continue to think that the CryptoOperation class needs to be a form of Promise
15:42:19 [rsleevi_]
(at least, I don't have time, ddahl?)
15:42:20 [wseltzer]
... to address earlier comments, if we can.
15:42:21 [slightlyoff]
and it's not today
15:42:56 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: I disagree it's necessary for the next WD. Don't see that I can add it.
15:43:04 [wseltzer]
... don't need to duplicate IRTF doc.
15:43:21 [virginie]
15:43:21 [wseltzer]
virginie: we might have more developments re security review when David Rogers takes it up.
15:43:25 [wseltzer]
ack hhalpin
15:43:26 [wseltzer]
ack markw
15:43:27 [rsleevi_]
slightlyoff: A non-multi-part CryptoOperation yes, but I don't think a multi-part operation fits in the promise model
15:43:32 [mountie]
for security consideration, we need to reference WebAppSec WG CSP
15:43:36 [hhalpin]
its generally good to be able to point to our response from a previous heartbeat in a new hearbeat, but we do of course only have so much time.
15:43:39 [wseltzer]
markw: We haven't discussed removal of key attribs before
15:43:48 [wseltzer]
... is the intent that other specs might add attribs?
15:43:59 [ddahl]
rsleevi: Perhaps, I thought we had some new language for that section?
15:44:02 [wseltzer]
... re pre-provisioned keys, we discussed ID attrib.
15:44:04 [arunranga]
zakim, unmute me
15:44:04 [Zakim]
arunranga should no longer be muted
15:44:18 [wseltzer]
... re unwrapping, there might be attributes inside the wrapper, exposed on unwrapping.
15:44:31 [wseltzer]
... that wouls resurrect the requirement for attribs on the key.
15:44:34 [rsleevi_]
q+ to respond to mark
15:44:37 [wseltzer]
15:44:53 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: key attribs relies on things not yet specified by JOSE
15:45:09 [wseltzer]
... would prefer not to include something on which there's no proposal for how it's going to work.
15:45:18 [slightlyoff]
rsleevi_: if there's a single answer to the operation (a single result), then it fits.
15:45:26 [wseltzer]
... once there's more work from JOSE re key wrapping, we may reconsider.
15:45:39 [rsleevi_]
slightlyoff: Agreed
15:45:50 [wseltzer]
ack next
15:45:52 [Zakim]
rsleevi_, you wanted to respond to mark
15:46:13 [wseltzer]
markw: can other specs add attributes?
15:46:35 [hhalpin]
In W3C process terms, there's no problem with specifying certain key attributes in a different document
15:46:43 [wseltzer]
arunranga: also my Q. if a web developer wants to determine validity, they need to engage with the app?
15:46:54 [hhalpin]
it just makes things more confusing for readers.
15:47:02 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: start-date and end-date removed at our first face-to-face. too much variation.
15:47:19 [wseltzer]
... all these notions of validity are more closely related to application than to key storage.
15:47:27 [wseltzer]
... they're not universal concepts.
15:47:50 [wseltzer]
... very few APIs, except PKCS11, allow you to add attribs
15:48:03 [slightlyoff]
rsleevi_: 12.1's multi-part steps suggest to me that there's a single return value
15:48:12 [wseltzer]
... Problem: exposing attrib directly leaves it undefined for all keys that don't have the attrib
15:48:26 [wseltzer]
... either you're defining default values or saying it may be present.
15:49:04 [wseltzer]
... Problematic if the underlying external storage system changes attribs, how do I reflect that to the caller? what's the UA to do?
15:49:39 [wseltzer]
... so for key object, if you want to talk about validity, stick it in indexdb, leave it to application to both store and enforce.
15:49:43 [arunranga]
15:49:47 [arunranga]
15:49:48 [wseltzer]
... having a key-value store doesn't really fit
15:50:00 [wseltzer]
virginie: does that make sense?
15:50:03 [markw]
15:50:30 [wseltzer]
virginie: does that mean we'll never have to use attributes in main API?
15:50:35 [arunranga]
zakim, mute me
15:50:35 [Zakim]
arunranga should now be muted
15:50:47 [wseltzer]
zooko: I like Ryan's latest rev of the API.
15:50:58 [slightlyoff]
it's not using promises yet
15:51:00 [wseltzer]
... Consistently asynchronous using promises; a few one-shot.
15:51:24 [wseltzer]
... still think it would be good for usability and security as to whether they provide encryption, hashing, or something else
15:51:36 [wseltzer]
s/as to/to label algorithms as to/
15:51:42 [hhalpin]
I'm partial to attributes personally, but I'm not going to object.
15:51:56 [wseltzer]
rsleevi_: considering adding a table of contents, listing algorithms and supporting ops.
15:52:02 [wseltzer]
15:52:37 [virginie]
15:52:37 [wseltzer]
zooko: Sounds like a way to express what algorithms do, will look.
15:52:44 [wseltzer]
ack zooko
15:52:46 [wseltzer]
ack next
15:53:30 [wseltzer]
markw: pre-provisioned keys creates a sub-class with attribs
15:53:45 [wseltzer]
virginie: any comments, send them and proposed resolution to Ryan
15:54:15 [wseltzer]
virginie: so prepare for WG decision on publication 17 Dec.
15:54:32 [hhalpin]
US-friendly time.
15:54:37 [hhalpin]
20:00 UTC
15:54:41 [wseltzer]
virginie: Additional call next week, 17 Dec. 20 UTC (3pm Boston, Noon Pacific)
15:55:02 [wseltzer]
... Quick question to David Dahl, progress on high-level API?
15:55:21 [wseltzer]
ddahl: Drafts on github, getting comments from Richard Barnes, Mike Jones. Will ping them again.
15:55:35 [mountie]
20:00 UTC ==> 05:00 AM KST
15:55:35 [wseltzer]
virginie: please share on public list when in shape.
15:55:40 [Zakim]
15:55:49 [wseltzer]
Topic: Group Life
15:55:54 [rsleevi_]
@slightlyoff: Both single and multi-part operations may result in multiple outputs (via progress events), along with a final event (oncomplete) indicating that the operation is completed / final values are calculated (or validated). Example of multiple onprogress events would be an encrypt (single part or multi-part), example of intermediate onprogress events but a single oncomplete would be a decrypt/MAC verify
15:56:12 [wseltzer]
virginie: We'll have to decide when to hold our next meeting.
15:56:21 [wseltzer]
... We have offers from Korea and Boston for hosting.
15:56:33 [wseltzer]
... but first I'd like to find a date. Please fill out the doodle.
15:57:02 [wseltzer]
... We'll continue alternating phone call timing.
15:57:12 [Zakim]
15:57:20 [wseltzer]
... In January, one call every two weeks, alternating times.
15:57:22 [rsleevi_]
@zooko: Consider something like Table 34 of or
15:57:27 [slightlyoff]
rsleevi_: so in the multiple progress for multi-part encrypt, are the chunks handed to the progress events also part of the final result?
15:57:29 [wseltzer]
... Next week, 17 Dec call to prepare publication.
15:57:41 [wseltzer]
virginie: thanks to all the editors for their hard work
15:57:44 [rsleevi_]
@slightlyoff: That's what I think we're trying to figure out and nail down ;)
15:57:53 [wseltzer]
... Ryan, Arun, Mark, thank you!
15:58:06 [rsleevi_]
@slightlyoff: Whether to follow the File API model (which is "Yes"), or to follow the "save memory model" (which is "no")
15:58:12 [wseltzer]
... next week, focus on getting consensus to go for publication.
15:58:17 [Zakim]
15:58:20 [wseltzer]
virginie: talk to you in a week and on ml.
15:58:20 [Zakim]
15:58:21 [Zakim]
15:58:21 [Zakim]
15:58:23 [Zakim]
15:58:23 [Zakim]
15:58:24 [Zakim]
15:58:24 [Zakim]
15:58:26 [Zakim]
15:58:27 [Zakim]
15:58:28 [wseltzer]
RRSAgent: make minutes
15:58:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wseltzer
15:58:29 [Zakim]
15:58:30 [Zakim]
15:58:30 [slightlyoff]
rsleevi_: if we want a streaming crypto operation, we should do that orthoginally
15:58:31 [Zakim]
15:58:34 [Zakim]
15:58:59 [Zakim]
15:59:07 [Zakim]
SEC_WebCryp()10:00AM has ended
15:59:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.571.335.aaaa, Wendy, Nat_Sakimura, +1.408.458.aabb, Scott_Kelly, +1.303.543.aacc, zooko, ddahl, +1.512.257.aadd, +1.415.867.aaee, markw, virginie, arunranga,
15:59:07 [Zakim]
... +47.40.22.aaff, +1.650.525.aagg, pal, Havard_Molland, +, mountie, Alex_Russell, +1.512.343.aaii, karen, hhalpin, [Google], [Microsoft]
15:59:13 [wseltzer]
trackbot, end teleconf
15:59:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:59:13 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:59:16 [zooko]
rsleevi_: this comment confused me:
15:59:16 [zooko]
// Unlike the signing example, which showed multi-part encryption, here we
15:59:16 [zooko]
// will perform the entire AES operation in a single call.
15:59:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:59:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
15:59:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:59:22 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
15:59:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: virginie to propose language on relation between WebCryptoAPI and use cases [1]
15:59:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:59:29 [_nat]
_nat has left #crypto