See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 December 2012
<wseltzer> markw: The decision on WebCryptoAPI and KeyDiscoveryAPI should be a single decision
<wseltzer> virginie: do I understand correctly, if KeyDiscovery is not approved, next step will be to make clear in WebCrytpoAPI that this is under development.
<wseltzer> markw: but in that case, we wouldn't be able to approve that today
<wseltzer> scribenick: rsleevi
<scribe> scribenick: rsleevi
<wseltzer> [Use cases: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-usecases/raw-file/tip/Overview.html]
<arunranga> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Dec/0046.html
arunranga: Goal of use cases has
always been to primarily document "What will we do first"
... taken feedback from markw, rsleevi and wrote use cases
document to cover both APIs
... if a feature comes from key discovery API, clearly marked
as such
... more feedback (particularly on OTR) needed, example code
still needs work
virginie: Hopefully use cases document will clarify what we're trying to reach with the API
arunranga: Use Cases document is probably not Rec Track, but as a companion document
PROPOSAL: Agreement to publish Use Cases document as FPWD
<JimD> +1
+1
<emily> +1
<ddahl> +1
<virginie> +1
<wseltzer> +1
<arunranga> +1
<Karen_> +1
<wtc> +1
<johnsim> +1
<mitchz> +1
RESOLUTION: Use Cases document to be published as FPWD
<scribe> ACTION: arun to update Use Cases to conform to Pub Rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/17-crypto-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Update Use Cases to conform to Pub Rules [on Arun Ranganathan - due 2012-12-24].
<wseltzer> [Key Discovery: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-keydiscovery/raw-file/tip/keydiscovery.html ]
markw: Scope of key discovery
draft has been limited to origin-specific named provisioned
keys
... Changes since last week: Updated async pattern to match
core Web Crypto API pattern
... returning no keys is considered an 'error' case, although
it may represent a normal case (no keys, user not
authorized)
<wseltzer> [Mark's update email: http://www.w3.org/mid/8B8A45F5-1877-485E-914E-BC2908304FF1@netflix.com ]
markw: means onsuccess always has
1 or more keys
... introduces NamedKey subclass of Key, exposes new
attributes. Object is immutable on creation (id and name CANNOT
change)
... has a case where underlying key material may disappear
while a Key object exists
... moves use case from core spec that used discovery into this
spec
... added to workerglobalscope
<Karen_> +q
<arunranga> markw, a "once-over" of the use case would be helpful.
karen: Why is cryptokey on window instead of window.crypto
<johnsim> microsoft.a is tony nadalin
markw: The idea was to try to
make a clear separation between the optional functionality and
the core spec
... Having two high level objects is a clear way to signal
that
karen: Isn't putting .cryptokey under .crypto the same?
markw: Really don't have a strong opinion
<wseltzer> rlseevi: don't have strong opinion, suggest we take the discussion to the list
<wseltzer> ... how does it interface with core spec, with workers
<wseltzer> ... mostly a question for implementors
virginie: This spec is just a first draft, showing we're progressing and well-structuring the specification
<arunranga> +1 rsleevi, and FWIW I think that we don't need to bring provisioned keys and {generated} keys under the same host object.
wtc: The way you specify the name
attribute implies you want to allow multiple keys with the same
name
... Wondering if you have a use case for keys with the same
name, or is this an oversight?
<arunranga> - arunranga
markw: I don't think we have a
use case for multiple keys in the same device with the same
name
... The way key discovery was specified is that you get all the
keys that match the criteria
... currently the only criteria is name, which is an exact
match
... discussing internally about alternate matching (eg:
wildcards) which can return multiple keys
... believes it was decided against, so that the outcome was
only zero or one keys
virginie: wtc, do you see use cases for multiple keys matching the same name
<selfissued> Mike Jones online
wtc: This was just a question when comparing what Mark specified and what was specified in the FPWD. What was the equivalent attribute in the FPWD implied that it is unique within the origin, but the current draft in Mark's spec has no such requirement
markw: The intention was that the name was unique within the origin. We can change that
wseltzer: Just to put a voice to
what Arun mentioned on IRC. The votes are just to the
publication of the documents.
... Agreement means you agree the document accurately captures
the state of discussion, not necessarily that you agree with
whats in the document or that you support all of the
features
... thanks to everyone for getting to this point
PROPOSAL: Publish Key Discovery API as FPWD
+1
<markw> +1
<ddahl> +1
<JimD> +1
<Karen_> +1
<virginie> +1
<emily> +1
<wseltzer> +1
<mitchz> +1
<selfissued> +1
RESOLUTION: Consensus to publish key discovery API
virginie: Thanks to Mark for taking up editing this document. It will be submitted for WD with the main API
<scribe> ACTION: markw to update Key Discovery API to Pub Rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/17-crypto-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find markw. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/users>.
<wseltzer> rsleevi: There have been no changes since we called for publication last week
<wseltzer> ... still some pubrules and typo changes to fix, but no substantive changes
PROPOSAL: Publish Web Crypto API ED as the next WD
+1
<virginie> +1
<ddahl> +1
<emily> +1
<JimD> +1
<wtc> +1
<Karen_> +1
<mitchz> +1
<wseltzer> +1
<markw> +1
RESOLUTION: Consensus to publish as next WD
<wseltzer> [http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-usecases/raw-file/tip/Overview.html]
<scribe> ACTION: rsleevi to update ED to Pub Rules for next WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/17-crypto-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Update ED to Pub Rules for next WD [on Ryan Sleevi - due 2012-12-24].
virginie: Planning for how to get
feedback from community about this next WD and getting feedback
from the wider community
... Key Discovery API is very new, make sure that we're
covering the necessary features
<johnsim> +1 on publishing web crypto API ED
virginie: regular call will be
one call every two weeks.
... call will focus on specific issues to make sure we're
helping the editors improve the specification
... To decide in January which week we will meet for a
F2F
... two weeks in March where wseltzer will be free. Need to
decide on location
... possibilities are Boston and Korea so far
<JimD> Excellent work. Thanks to the editors!
virginie: Agreed. Very good that
we have a structured set of documents and that we're
progressing
... next challenge will be high-level API, being worked on by
ddahl, rbarnes, and selfissued
... Thanks to everyone for making this call. Next call will be
second week of January
... January 7 at 20:00 UTC
<wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf