20:09:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
20:09:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/03-crypto-irc
20:09:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:09:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
20:09:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM already started
20:09:13 <hhalpin> Zakim, what's the code?
20:09:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
20:09:14 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), hhalpin
20:09:14 <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2013
20:09:41 <wseltzer> chair: Virginie
20:09:45 <wseltzer> scribenick: ddahl
20:10:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
20:10:09 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 1
20:10:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "welcome" taken up [from virginie]
20:10:13 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 2
20:10:13 <Zakim> agendum 2. "web crypto API (futures, wrap/unwrap...)" taken up [from virginie]
20:10:18 <hhalpin> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
20:10:18 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
20:10:24 <rsleevi> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/rev/9a993888347c -> KeyOperation
20:10:35 <ddahl> virginie: requests went out to people on the status of features
20:10:43 <ddahl> ... how do they integrate into the spec
20:10:53 <ddahl> ... all needs a review by the TAG
20:11:10 <ddahl> ... seems to be a consensus on promises or futures
20:11:20 <ddahl> ... (as the way forward)
20:11:38 <ddahl> ... some folks think it might be risky to go in that direction
20:11:49 <arunranga> Zakim, unmute me
20:11:49 <Zakim> arunranga should no longer be muted
20:11:51 <rsleevi> q+
20:11:53 <hhalpin> q+
20:11:54 <ddahl> israelh: is there a spec for futures to point to
20:12:24 <arunranga> israeli, TC-39 will also take this on as language specific work.
20:12:25 <hhalpin> The TAG is not doing the spec, and Futures will keep "promises" name.
20:12:28 <virginie> q?
20:12:32 <wseltzer> ack rsleevi
20:12:33 <arunranga> s/israeli/israelh
20:12:37 <hhalpin> TC-39 is looking at promises to my understanding
20:12:52 <ddahl> rsleevi: tc39 is taking on js spec work
20:13:09 <ddahl> ... all of this is being integrated into the w3c dom spec
20:13:14 <arunranga> Between DOM Futures and TC-39, that'll be the "Futures spec" stuff.
20:13:42 <ddahl> israelh: was unaware that anna was an editor of the dom spec any longer
20:13:45 <arunranga> q+
20:14:01 <ddahl> virginie: are you tinking this will be not well integrated?
20:14:18 <MichaelH> s/tinking/thinking
20:14:26 <ddahl> israelh: MS does not like to implement non-W3C specs
20:14:48 <virginie> q?
20:14:52 <arunranga> Zakim, unmute me
20:14:52 <Zakim> arunranga was not muted, arunranga
20:14:55 <arunranga> q+
20:15:00 <wseltzer> ack hh
20:15:06 <ddahl> ... want to be sure there is someome as point person around future
20:15:07 <ddahl> s
20:16:09 <virginie> q?
20:16:16 <MichaelH> q+
20:16:40 <hhalpin> ack hhalpin
20:16:45 <wseltzer> ack arunranga
20:16:53 <ddahl> hhalpin: scheduling will work this out, we want to make sure technical problems are figured out by the time we get to lacst call, not sure about anna's work right now
20:17:07 <hhalpin> in other words, this will be sorted soon in TC39, keepthe TAG and TC39 in the loop with any technical problems.
20:17:14 <ddahl> arunranga: anna is now a mozilla emplyee
20:17:27 <ddahl> ... is editing DOM futures in WHATWG
20:17:50 <ddahl> ... MS's feedback is important to all of us, etc, what we can do about this being in WhatWG
20:18:26 <ddahl> ... Anna does not go to tc39 meetings, but your feedback about this not happening in W3C is important to us
20:18:40 <ddahl> MichaelH: is there an update on cancellation of operations?
20:19:08 <arunranga> s/Anna/Anne
20:19:17 <ddahl> rsleevi: no way to wait for cancellantion ,still have abort()
20:19:38 <ddahl> arunranga: thanks
20:20:08 <ddahl> virginie: confident in promises being the right tech. and integrated into W3C
20:20:24 <rsleevi> q+
20:20:28 <ddahl> ... there may be a weird overlap between Promises spec and our own
20:20:44 <ddahl> ... what you recommend about this?
20:20:59 <ddahl> rsleevi: there are already other apis moving over and being updated
20:21:17 <ddahl> ... the current spec points to the DOM spec on whatwg
20:21:56 <ddahl> ... we should continue this even as this is being worked on in whatwg, and w3c
20:22:19 <hhalpin> Zakim, who's making noise?
20:22:21 <ddahl> israelh: MS is not part of the whatwg
20:22:32 <Zakim> hhalpin, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: mountie (4%), arunranga (22%), [IPcaller.a] (9%)
20:22:37 <arunranga> zakim, mute me
20:22:37 <Zakim> arunranga should now be muted
20:22:55 <ddahl> ... we should in parallel iron out this issue
20:23:32 <ddahl> hhalpin: we should make a quick note that Promises has  home outside of the whatwg
20:23:40 <arunranga> happy to take an action or whatever; as discussed if israelh sends me email, I'm happy to follow up.
20:24:16 <ddahl> virginie: next item to discuss the recent changes in the spec
20:24:37 <ddahl> rsleevi: I have pushed the Futures-enhanced version in 2 phases
20:24:58 <ddahl> the normative part becomes simpler
20:25:23 <ddahl> rsleevi: we have a few diff, ways a key op can fail, how do we represent this and communicate this back to callers?
20:25:56 <ddahl> ... do we use DOMError or a more specific error?
20:26:31 <ddahl> ... if a keygen fails because of whatever reason, how do we signal the specific error conditions?
20:26:43 <ddahl> ... not a blocker for a publication of a heartbeat
20:26:58 <ddahl> ... will echo this on the mailing list
20:27:42 <israelh> q+
20:27:46 <ddahl> ... 2nd issue is the cryptooperation's process and finish, have some examples that will be pushed soon.
20:27:54 <ddahl> ... looking for feedback on this
20:28:00 <wseltzer> ack israelh
20:28:13 <ddahl> israelh: what else would we use byt DOMError?
20:28:45 <ddahl> rsleevi: there is a case were we reject with (a property) set to null
20:28:53 <virginie> agenda+ high level api
20:29:03 <ddahl> ... should we formalize specific errors and codes?
20:29:24 <ddahl> israelh: do we specify errors based on alg or ?
20:29:44 <ddahl> rsleevi: not sure about all of the errors that are anticipated
20:30:13 <ddahl> ... there are a variety of errors here to deal with - do we enumerate all of them in the spec?
20:30:18 <virginie> q?
20:30:51 <ddahl> virginie: how are we going to track any of this?
20:31:07 <ddahl> rsleevi: not sure if this is an action yet, going to post to the mailing list,
20:31:25 <ddahl> ... don't think this will block a draft being published
20:31:27 <MichaelH> http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#interface-domerror
20:31:41 <ddahl> ... this seems to be underspecified right now
20:31:52 <ddahl> virginie: anything else to track here?
20:32:50 <ddahl> rsleevi: the issue of whatwg publishing the futures spec shouldn't block. if this is a serious issue for MS we should figure that out now
20:32:59 <ddahl> israelh: willwe figure this out by last call?
20:33:07 <ddahl> rsleevi: yes we have to
20:33:29 <ddahl> ... this needs to be available in the heartbeat draft, must be resolbved b4 last call
20:33:42 <ddahl> israelh: what time frame do see a resolution?
20:34:11 <ddahl> rsleevi: next publication is 2 weeks till review and maybe by the next call
20:34:23 <ddahl> ... otherwise we proceed with this unaddressed
20:34:42 <ddahl> ... hoping this is resolved in the next few weeks
20:34:46 <hhalpin> We need June :)
20:34:56 <ddahl> israelh: july or august
20:34:58 <ddahl> ...??
20:35:08 <ddahl> rsleevi: no, june, very soon
20:35:29 <ddahl> israelh: we all agree that a new heartbeat should happen soon
20:35:45 <ddahl> rsleevi: we should see more frequent editor updates
20:36:00 <ddahl> ... tricky bits are key import wrap unwrap and futures
20:36:14 <ddahl> ... hoping for a july  / early aug heartbeat as well
20:36:31 <MichaelH> q+
20:36:41 <wseltzer> ack MichaelH
20:36:57 <hhalpin> Everything is spec-specific
20:37:00 <ddahl> MichaelH: clarification: do these errors as specified go to our spec only or DOM-wide?
20:37:34 <ddahl> rsleevi: these are types of errors that are DOMErrors
20:37:53 <ddahl> ... string desire to not introduce spec-specific erros
20:38:18 <ddahl> MichaelH: do we have to possibility of introducing new DOMerrors?
20:38:28 <ddahl> rsleevi: yes, but is very much discouraged
20:38:30 <israelh> q+
20:39:16 <ddahl> israelh: there are some interesting examples like indexedDB where we can draw error codes from
20:40:08 <ddahl> rsleevi: lets start figuring out what errors we need and see if we actually need to introduce new erros
20:40:15 <virginie> q?
20:40:25 <virginie> ack israelh
20:40:57 <ddahl> virginie: vijay can you make a status about key lifecycle? has it been integrated in any spec?
20:41:20 <ddahl> vgb: have not noticed if the key agreement parts were updated
20:41:32 <ddahl> vgb: planning to update things today
20:41:51 <ddahl> virginie: should we wait till the next heartbeat?
20:41:59 <ddahl> vgb: should ask rsleevi
20:42:17 <ddahl> rsleevi: will review this and figure out what this can be incorporated into
20:42:39 <ddahl> virginie: of we can integrate this easily, ok, otherwise delay it
20:43:11 <ddahl> virginie: discussion related to wrap unwrap is not so appropriate without netflix
20:43:34 <ddahl> virginie: ok for next heartbeat in August
20:43:52 <ddahl> ... worried we will not get much feedback in August
20:44:03 <hhalpin> we need the heartbeat in June IMHO
20:44:20 <ddahl> virginie: we will have to have a June heartbeat
20:44:29 <ddahl> ... net one in august but need participation
20:44:48 <ddahl> ... any objections to a heartbeat in JUNE?
20:44:53 <nvdbleek> +1
20:44:57 <virginie> +1
20:45:00 <ddahl> ... and august
20:45:02 <hhalpin> +1
20:45:03 <MichaelH> +1
20:45:04 <ddahl> +1
20:45:09 <mountie> +1
20:45:11 <rsleevi> +1
20:45:15 <sangrae> +1
20:45:41 <ddahl> virginie: next status about use cases
20:45:50 <arunranga> Zakim, unmute me
20:45:50 <Zakim> arunranga should no longer be muted
20:45:52 <ddahl> ... arun can you note thie changes?
20:46:05 <ddahl> arunranga: I have been updating the use cases draft
20:46:11 <ddahl> ... the format has changed
20:46:18 <ddahl> ... using respec.js
20:46:26 <ddahl> ... mainly a text migration
20:47:18 <ddahl> ... the controversial threat module around localstorage attack being changed to keeping a distribution or cdn code safe by checking it against a hash
20:47:28 <ddahl> ... also working on fileAPI
20:47:47 <virginie> q?
20:47:49 <ddahl> ... the smaller changes have landed not big changes
20:48:01 <mountie> please send link of recent work
20:48:10 <ddahl> virginie: can we push a heartbeat at the same time for use cases?
20:48:23 <ddahl> arunranga: i think so, ryan what is the date we are targeting?
20:48:39 <ddahl> rsleevi: can we vote on this next call?
20:48:43 <virginie> usecases spec https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-usecases/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
20:49:00 <rsleevi> q+
20:49:24 <ddahl> rsleevi: to clarify: the WG should be reviwing this stuff now for the next heartbeat
20:49:40 <ddahl> ... 2 weeks from now we publish the latest and greatest
20:50:15 <ddahl> arunranga: yes, if th edraft is ready for the next call, then yes we can push it, otherwise wait
20:50:53 <ddahl> virginie: do you have 2ndary use cases in another document or wiki?
20:51:09 <karen> q+
20:51:14 <ddahl> arunranga: just in the wiki
20:51:22 <wseltzer> ack karen
20:51:27 <hhalpin> Thus, we are aiming after AC
20:51:50 <ddahl> karen: arunranga what about the cross-origin use case?
20:52:04 <ddahl> arunranga: yes, this is covered in the "BrowserID" use case
20:52:37 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 6
20:52:37 <Zakim> agendum 6. "high level api" taken up [from virginie]
20:52:51 <wseltzer> q+
20:52:53 <ddahl> virginie: next on agenda: high-level work, assume this work is not progressing
20:53:40 <ddahl> virginie: ddahl do you have any view on this?
20:53:53 <hhalpin> mike jones and richard barnes are missing
20:54:02 <hhalpin> and they expressed interest.
20:54:12 <wseltzer> ddahl: Some of my upcoming work will be with high-level shims on top of polycrypt
20:54:58 <hhalpin> next monday :)
20:54:59 <hhalpin> ?
20:55:27 <ddahl> virginie: will call for another phone call on highlevel apis
20:55:29 <hhalpin> June 24th?
20:56:45 <ddahl> wseltzer: note that I have been talking to rbarnes about high level work with polycrypt
20:57:05 <ddahl> ... perhaps we can use this to get more feedback from the crypto community
20:57:57 <ddahl> virginie: F2F discussion: mainly negative feeback mainly
20:58:11 <ddahl> virginie: we will be cancelling that meeting
20:58:30 <hhalpin> in good news mountie, it appears WWW2014 will be in April in Korea.
20:58:44 <hhalpin> So perhaps that would make sense as a time to have a Korea meeting.
20:59:05 <ddahl> virginie: participation in IETF JOSE discussions is encouraged
20:59:30 <ddahl> ... any other business?
20:59:55 <ddahl> rsleevi: 2 notes: hoping for more review of rbarnes random source proposal
21:00:37 <ddahl> ... 2: around implementation: chromium team has indicated that they are committed to implement
21:01:06 <Zakim> -hhalpin
21:01:47 <Zakim> -Google
21:01:50 <Zakim> -jyates
21:01:51 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:01:51 <Zakim> -Karen
21:01:53 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
21:01:55 <Zakim> -mountie
21:01:56 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:01:56 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
21:01:58 <Zakim> -ddahl
21:02:01 <Zakim> -Virginie
21:02:02 <Zakim> -vgb
21:02:06 <Zakim> -Michael
21:02:10 <wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconference
21:02:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:02:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jyates, Michael, [Microsoft], Virginie, ddahl, mountie, nvdbleek, Karen, arunranga, Google, Wendy, vgb, hhalpin
21:02:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:02:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/03-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
21:02:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:02:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items