14:56:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
14:56:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-crypto-irc
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> hi
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> +Wendy
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> hello!
15:01:18 <wseltzer> zakim, aacc is zooko
15:01:19 <Zakim> +zooko; got it
15:01:23 <Zakim> +ddahl
15:01:34 <wseltzer> agenda?
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> +arunranga
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> -Nat_Sakimura
15:03:37 <Zakim> + +47.40.22.aaff
15:03:48 <arunranga> Use Cases document in HG: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-usecases/raw-file/536a63a3f94c/Overview.html
15:04:10 <pal> pal has joined #crypto
15:04:21 <Zakim> + +1.650.525.aagg
15:04:23 <Zakim> +Nat_Sakimura
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> + +82.22.14.0.aahh
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> agenda?
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> [agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Dec/0005.html]
15:08:57 <Zakim> +??P45
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> http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-crypto-minutes.html
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> arunranga: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-usecases/raw-file/536a63a3f94c/Overview.html
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 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), 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> +[IPcaller]
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> +1
15:15:37 <wseltzer> ... Any objection to having the spec go for publication 17 Dec?
15:15:38 <hhalpin> +1
15:15:46 <virginie> +1
15:15:54 <ddahl> +1
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> +1
15:16:28 <pal> q+
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> q+
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> q?
15:21:03 <wseltzer> ack markw
15:21:05 <hhalpin> ack markw
15:21:19 <markw> q-
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> q?
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> q+
15:24:17 <Zakim> -Havard_Molland
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> +Havard_Molland
15:25:15 <Zakim> +[Google]
15:25:18 <hhalpin> q+
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_> q+
15:26:03 <wseltzer> ... added some material on privacy, based on indexdb document
15:26:14 <virginie>  Key discovery specification proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Dec/0001.html
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> q+
15:28:06 <rsleevi_> +1
15:28:07 <hhalpin> +1
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> q+
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_> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/log
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> +[Microsoft]
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> q+
15:39:50 <markw> q+
15:39:58 <arunranga> q+
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> +q
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> q?
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> s/wouls/would/
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> q-
15:49:47 <arunranga> ack
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> q+
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> s/supporting/supported/
15:52:37 <virginie> q?
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> -Havard_Molland
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> +Havard_Molland
15:57:20 <wseltzer> ... In January, one call every two weeks, alternating times.
15:57:22 <rsleevi_> @zooko: Consider something like Table 34 of http://www.cryptsoft.com/pkcs11doc/STANDARD/pkcs-11v2-20.pdf or http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core1/#sec-Table-of-Algorithms
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> -Scott_Kelly
15:58:20 <wseltzer> virginie: talk to you in a week and on ml.
15:58:20 <Zakim> -pal
15:58:21 <Zakim> -[Google]
15:58:21 <Zakim> -hhalpin
15:58:23 <Zakim> -ddahl
15:58:23 <Zakim> -Havard_Molland
15:58:24 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
15:58:24 <Zakim> -markw
15:58:26 <Zakim> -karen
15:58:27 <Zakim> -zooko
15:58:28 <wseltzer> RRSAgent: make minutes
15:58:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
15:58:29 <Zakim> -virginie
15:58:30 <Zakim> -mountie
15:58:30 <slightlyoff> rsleevi_: if we want a streaming crypto operation, we should do that orthoginally
15:58:31 <Zakim> -Nat_Sakimura
15:58:34 <Zakim> -Wendy
15:58:59 <Zakim> -Alex_Russell
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, +82.22.14.0.aahh, 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 http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
15:59:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:22 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-crypto-actions.rdf :
15:59:22 <RRSAgent> ACTION: virginie to propose language on relation between WebCryptoAPI and use cases [1]
15:59:22 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-crypto-irc#T15-20-10
15:59:29 <_nat> _nat has left #crypto