19:57:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
19:57:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/17-crypto-irc
19:57:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:57:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #crypto
19:57:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:57:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
19:57:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
19:57:29 <trackbot> Date: 17 June 2013
19:58:01 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM has now started
19:58:07 <Zakim> + +1.512.257.aaaa
19:58:39 <Zakim> + +1.650.214.aabb
19:58:44 <MichaelH> MichaelH has joined #crypto
19:59:10 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has joined #crypto
19:59:12 <virginie> Zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:59:12 <Zakim> ok, virginie, I see SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM already started
19:59:27 <nvdbleek> zakim, code?
19:59:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nvdbleek
19:59:32 <Zakim> + +1.415.294.aacc
19:59:57 <Zakim> +Virginie_Galindo
20:00:16 <arunranga> arunranga has joined #crypto
20:00:29 <Zakim> +??P4
20:00:31 <MichaelH> Zakim, aaaa is MichaelH
20:00:31 <Zakim> +MichaelH; got it
20:00:31 <arunranga> zakim, who is on the call?
20:00:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see MichaelH, Google, +1.415.294.aacc, Virginie_Galindo, ??P4
20:00:32 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:00:33 <virginie> Zakim, who is here?
20:00:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see MichaelH, Google, +1.415.294.aacc, Virginie_Galindo, ??P4
20:00:36 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:00:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see arunranga, nvdbleek, MichaelH, Zakim, RRSAgent, virginie, sangrae, jyates, jeffh, ale, tobie, rsleevi, eroman, slightlyoff, trackbot, wseltzer
20:00:37 <nvdbleek> zakim, I am ??P4
20:00:38 <Zakim> +nvdbleek; got it
20:00:38 <Zakim> +Wendy
20:00:50 <arunranga> Zakim, aacc is arunranga
20:00:50 <Zakim> +arunranga; got it
20:00:57 <wseltzer> Chair: Virginie_Galindo
20:01:20 <Zakim> + +1.512.257.aadd
20:01:24 <arunranga> zakim, mute me
20:01:25 <Zakim> arunranga should now be muted
20:01:37 <wseltzer> zakim, aadd is karn
20:01:37 <Zakim> +karn; got it
20:01:45 <karen> karen has joined #crypto
20:01:46 <wseltzer> zakim, karn is really karen
20:01:46 <Zakim> +karen; got it
20:02:05 <virginie> agenda?
20:02:12 <Zakim> +fjh
20:02:12 <virginie> agenda+ Welcome
20:02:44 <ddahl> ddahl has joined #crypto
20:02:53 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:03:13 <wseltzer> zakim, Microsoft has Tony_Nadalin
20:03:13 <Zakim> +Tony_Nadalin; got it
20:03:32 <virginie> agenda+ Focus on Web Crypto API
20:03:49 <virginie> agenda+ resolution to go for next PWD on the Web Crypto API
20:03:54 <virginie> agenda?
20:03:59 <Zakim> + +1.408.540.aaee
20:04:05 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:04:15 <Zakim> +ddahl
20:04:19 <wseltzer> zakim, Microsoft.a has Israel
20:04:19 <Zakim> +Israel; got it
20:04:29 <wseltzer> zakim, aaee is Netflix
20:04:29 <Zakim> +Netflix; got it
20:04:30 <scottk> scottk has joined #crypto
20:04:32 <israelh> israelh has joined #crypto
20:04:48 <wseltzer> zakim, Netflix has mwatson and scottk
20:04:48 <Zakim> +mwatson, scottk; got it
20:05:02 <virginie> Zakim, who is here?
20:05:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see MichaelH, Google, arunranga (muted), Virginie_Galindo, nvdbleek, Wendy, karen, fjh, [Microsoft], Netflix, [Microsoft.a], ddahl
20:05:04 <Zakim> Netflix has mwatson, scottk
20:05:04 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:05:04 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Tony_Nadalin
20:05:04 <Zakim> [Microsoft.a] has Israel
20:05:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see israelh, scottk, ddahl, karen, arunranga, nvdbleek, MichaelH, Zakim, RRSAgent, virginie, sangrae, jyates, jeffh, ale, tobie, rsleevi, eroman, slightlyoff, trackbot,
20:05:04 <Zakim> ... wseltzer
20:05:13 <Zakim> + +1.415.997.aaff
20:05:17 <markw> markw has joined #crypto
20:05:27 <slightlyoff> alex russell
20:05:31 <slightlyoff> (just joined)
20:07:20 <slightlyoff> thanks
20:07:25 <arunranga> hi ale, can you identify yourself?
20:07:37 <rsleevi> and fjh
20:07:39 <sangrae> I think IPcaller is sangrae
20:08:14 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
20:08:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see MichaelH, Google, arunranga (muted), Virginie_Galindo, nvdbleek, Wendy, karen, fjh, [Microsoft], Netflix, [Microsoft.a], ddahl, slightlyoff
20:08:18 <Zakim> Netflix has mwatson, scottk
20:08:18 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:08:18 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Tony_Nadalin
20:08:18 <Zakim> [Microsoft.a] has Israel
20:08:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see markw, israelh, scottk, ddahl, karen, arunranga, nvdbleek, MichaelH, Zakim, RRSAgent, virginie, sangrae, jyates, jeffh, ale, tobie, rsleevi, eroman, slightlyoff,
20:08:18 <Zakim> ... trackbot, wseltzer
20:08:18 <ale> arunranga, hi, I'm a student from Italy, and I'm using the WebCryptoAPI for my thesis
20:08:22 <mitchz> mitchz has joined #crypto
20:08:24 <wseltzer> present+ sangrae
20:08:39 <israelh> Israelh is on the called muted
20:08:50 <wseltzer> zakim, pick a victim
20:08:50 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ddahl
20:09:05 <wseltzer> zakim, pick another victim
20:09:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick another victim', wseltzer
20:09:06 <wseltzer> zakim, pick a victim
20:09:06 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Tony_Nadalin
20:09:23 <wseltzer> zakim, pick a victim
20:09:23 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose arunranga (muted)
20:09:28 <arunranga> Happy to scribe!
20:09:31 <arunranga> scribenick: arunranga
20:09:35 <ale> I've a question/proposal but I think this is not the right time to discuss that, so I'll just lurk here :)
20:09:39 <virginie> agenda?
20:10:16 <mitchz> mitchz has joined #crypto
20:10:43 <arunranga> zakim, take agenda 2
20:10:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take agenda 2', arunranga
20:10:49 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agenda 2
20:10:49 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Focus on Web Crypto API" taken up [from virginie]
20:11:31 <arunranga> RS: I'd like to make sure we can nail down blockers for a public working draft.
20:11:43 <arunranga> RS: An email with the updates was pushed out.
20:12:07 <arunranga> RS: Key operation and Futures/Promises transition happened.  We also updated ECDSA sample text.
20:12:21 <arunranga> RS: The main update is the Promises.
20:12:34 <arunranga> RS: We should also discuss wrap/unwrap issues.
20:13:30 <arunranga> VG: Using the two week draft, we'd like to initiate a heartbeat publication.
20:13:31 <markw> Q=
20:13:33 <markw> Q+
20:13:46 <Zakim> + +1.857.928.aagg
20:13:56 <arunranga> MW: I'd like to talk about wrap/unwrap, which isn't implemented as per our discussions.
20:14:59 <arunranga> MW: We had a proposal, which the group did agree should be in the spec., but Ryan did some parts of this only partially vis-a-vis the original proposal.  The part that's good is that Ryan has decoupled JWE from the actual key-wrapping format, which improves on the original.
20:15:33 <arunranga> MW: explicitly, a "wrap" is an "export+encrypt" and unwrap is "import+decrypt."
20:15:49 <timeless> timeless has joined #crypto
20:16:15 <arunranga> MW: But, in order to make it work per the original, we propose a key to be included, which is currently left blank.  The current text blocks that.
20:17:06 <arunranga> VG: Could we publish something that exposes the conflict?
20:17:40 <markw> s/propose a key to be included/proposed that a key format supporting attributes must be included/
20:17:43 <arunranga> RS: I've proposed on the list a way to resolve these concerns.  In particular, there isn't a crypto api that does this type of attribute carrying key format.
20:18:43 <markw> q+
20:18:45 <arunranga> RS: In the interim, I've described a solution on the list.  I have an implementation that can implement those aspects.  The point of contention seems to be whether or not this is something that the spec has to deal with this.  I've proposed on the list a way that doesn't necessitate spec. changes.
20:18:58 <arunranga> MW: [asks for clarification about listserv]
20:20:04 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
20:20:05 <arunranga> zakim, unmute me
20:20:06 <Zakim> arunranga should no longer be muted
20:21:22 <arunranga> MW: What Ryan was suggesting was that for named keys, with usage unwrap, could have a special behavior, such that when used, the result would always have result extractable as false.
20:21:52 <arunranga> MW: What I said was that on the one had it had this extra feature, and we need a solution that also works for named keys.
20:22:56 <arunranga> VG: do we publish as is, including a note, or do we keep two weeks to go ahead with further discussion.
20:23:24 <arunranga> MW: What we'd like is to determine whether a key delivered by our server, which is not extractable, can be used within wrap/unwrap.
20:23:46 <rsleevi> The proposal does not mandate Mark's proposal, but it does not prevent it either
20:23:57 <karen> +1
20:24:12 <arunranga> MW: I'd like to poll the group to determine whether non-extractable keys are a part of this proposal (for wrap / unwrap)
20:24:23 <mitchz> +1
20:24:47 <markw> +1
20:24:50 <sangrae> +1
20:24:59 <slightlyoff> -1
20:25:00 <arunranga> PROPOSAL-Tentative: SHould the spec. include an explicit non-extractable key for use within wrap /unwrap?
20:25:28 <israelh> israelh has joined #crypto
20:26:11 <markw> PROPOSAL: Key unwrapping should include support for unwrapping of non-extractable keys without the key material being exposed to Javascript
20:26:42 <markw> +1 ;-)
20:26:47 <mitchz> +1
20:26:54 <scottk> +1
20:27:01 <karen> +1
20:27:39 <slightlyoff> -1, but only because I don't want to block the heartbeat; I don't see how the process issue informs the substantive debate
20:27:57 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:28:21 <rsleevi> That is not accurate.
20:28:31 <rsleevi> As described on the mailing list, I've put forward how it can be.
20:28:39 <arunranga> MW: Ryan's proposal would not allow you to construct a wrapped key in such a way that it would be non-extractable and not exposed to JavaScript.
20:29:07 <markw> Qualifying, without using named keys
20:29:19 <arunranga> VG: I would suggest we add something into the specification that there is something more in order to address the complete use case.
20:30:06 <arunranga> MW: If the proposal of the group is to go ahead with the blank sections, but commit to clarifying it later, I'm ok with that.
20:30:46 <markw> s/clarifying it later/including functionality accordng to the original proposal/
20:31:12 <arunranga> VG: Ryan, would you agree to add something into the section that there is a need to clarify the "non-extractable and not exposed to JavaScript use case" within wrap/unwrap?
20:31:26 <markw> q+
20:31:29 <arunranga> RS: I think this is unnecessary and redundant.  But I'm happy to add an editorial note.
20:31:52 <arunranga> MW: more important than notes in the spec is to clarify what we're actually going to do in the spec.
20:32:06 <slightlyoff> yes, it's tactical
20:32:27 <MichaelH_> MichaelH_ has joined #crypto
20:32:27 <rsleevi> -1 on technical for V1 (to be clear)
20:32:34 <arunranga> VG: I think we should move in a direction to make the non-extractable key not exposed to JS.
20:32:50 <arunranga> MW: Requirement is to do this in the main spec. WITHOUT using named keys.
20:33:33 <MichaelH_> q+
20:33:34 <israelh> +1 to address this issue on the V1
20:33:50 <markw> q+
20:33:53 <arunranga> MH: Why would  a non-extractable key be exposed to anything?
20:34:33 <arunranga> MW: What we'd like to do is have a key that's been wrapped in such a way that we can use the unwrapping method to install that key into web crypto.  There would be NO way of getting that key in JS.
20:35:41 <arunranga> MW: The proposal is that there's a decrypt and an import.  But if you want to apply that to a key, then you have to use a key format that carries that format.  We can have a JWK format, which when decrypted and imported in one go ,will apply the attribute in the JWK over and above what's there.
20:36:10 <arunranga> MW: In JWE encapsulation, you'll have to do that in two steps.
20:36:38 <arunranga> MW: The content encryption key in the JWK, in the JWE structure, is the content encryption key wrapped with your pre-shared.
20:36:57 <slightlyoff> can whoever is typing mute themselves?
20:37:08 <arunranga> zakim, mute me
20:37:08 <Zakim> arunranga should now be muted
20:37:43 <arunranga> MW: (this is discussed on the listserv too): but the CEK (content encryption key) is specifically non-exportable.
20:38:25 <arunranga> MH: extractability is in two places?
20:38:49 <arunranga> MW: Yes.  Since doing it in two steps, you'd need to make sure what the usages are in each steps.
20:39:05 <arunranga> MW: ANd because these are atomic operations, as far as web crypto knows, you don't have to know about the key format.
20:39:14 <arunranga> MW: But in order to make it work, you need to have attributes.
20:39:36 <arunranga> MW: What's atomic is the combination of decrypt and import.  You'd have to do that twice.
20:40:11 <arunranga> MH: if the payload key is non-extractable, shouldn't the export fail?
20:40:49 <arunranga> MW: I'm describing an unwrap using a CEK.
20:41:01 <arunranga> MW: If you have no attributes on the CEK, I could use CEK to decrypt the payload.
20:41:13 <slightlyoff> how is this a good use of our time?
20:42:05 <arunranga> RS: Quick note.  He says we need to have attributes on the export key format, which I don't believe is the case.
20:42:07 <markw> q+
20:42:34 <arunranga> Proposal-Tentative: We go for a next public working draft, but include caveats about wrap/unwrap
20:42:42 <slightlyoff> +1
20:42:56 <arunranga> MW: Ryan, what you mention as a solution is to attach additional semantics to named keys.
20:43:47 <arunranga> RS: I've discussed multiple solution, and how they can look.  I've tried to provide a short term to allow for the heartbeat, and we can discuss how longterm solutions might look, but that are also generic.
20:44:06 <arunranga> Proposal: We go for a next public working draft, but include caveats about wrap/unwrap
20:44:15 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
20:44:23 <virginie> q?
20:44:50 <arunranga> zakim, unmute me
20:44:50 <Zakim> arunranga should no longer be muted
20:45:39 <arunranga> Proposal: We go for a next public working draft, but include caveats about wrap/unwrap, including the open question of an explicit CEK and the non-named key case
20:45:46 <wseltzer> zakim, mute arunranga
20:45:46 <Zakim> arunranga should now be muted
20:46:32 <markw> s/CEK/attributes/
20:46:57 <arunranga> : Proposal: We go for a next public working draft, but include caveats about wrap/unwrap, including the open question of a explicit attributes and the non-named key case
20:47:11 <arunranga> s/a explicit attributes/explicit attributes
20:47:41 <markw> q+
20:48:14 <markw> @rsleevi - by "V1" do you mean the first version of our document that goes to Recommendation
20:49:53 <arunranga> RS: we are committed to try to work towards a solution.  I want to be clear that the proposal isn't a "must have."  We are committed to working on it, but don't see it as an essential feature of the API.
20:50:25 <arunranga> RS: My clarification is that the solution as MW proposed won't be in the next public working draft.
20:51:05 <arunranga> MW: We had a long discussion about key wrapping and unwrapping, and a proposal to be included in the working draft.  This has been partially implemented, and leaves some things blank.  It would feel like a step backwards, if we say this would be in the "next version."
20:51:12 <rsleevi> It's entirely consistent with our statement of "Feature at Risk"
20:51:26 <rsleevi> and continues to keep Key Wrap/Unwrap in scope of our deliverable
20:51:52 <arunranga> RS: I want to make clear that we're committed to evolving an API that works.
20:52:23 <israelh> q+
20:52:33 <slightlyoff> I'm going to need to drop off the call
20:52:42 <rsleevi> Sure
20:52:47 <slightlyoff> apologies, I'd hoped we'd get to Promises
20:52:51 <markw> q-
20:53:04 <arunranga> IH: I'd like to get more clarification on the meaning of "at risk."
20:53:22 <arunranga> IH: The way we've done it with other specs, like IndexedDB, when something is "at risk" we still went ahead.
20:53:37 <slightlyoff> israelh: that's one way to define that, and IndexedDB did that wrong IMO
20:53:39 <arunranga> IH: The way we define "at risk" was that if some implementors didn't implement it, it might have dropped off.
20:54:11 <Zakim> -ddahl
20:54:40 <ddahl> anyone else disconnected?
20:55:06 <arunranga> Proposal: The Working Draft includes an editor's note about the status of wrap / unwrap, notably a caveat about explicit attributes.
20:55:11 <Zakim> +ddahl
20:55:24 <rsleevi> +1 to specifying in the spec that wrap/unwrap is underspecified, that more work is needed, to continuing to work in the WG to find a solution, but not changing wrap/unwrap as a feature at risk
20:55:35 <ddahl> +1
20:55:42 <virginie> +1
20:55:46 <karen> +1
20:55:47 <nvdbleek> +1
20:55:48 <sangrae> +1
20:55:53 <israelh> +1
20:55:54 <MichaelH_> +1
20:55:55 <arunranga> +1 with rsleevi clarifications
20:56:13 <slightlyoff> +1 to continuing to work in the WG to find a solution, but not changing wrap/unwrap as a feature at risk
20:56:20 <slightlyoff> (as rsleevi said)
20:57:01 <virginie> zakim, who is here ?
20:57:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see MichaelH, Google, arunranga (muted), Virginie_Galindo, nvdbleek, Wendy, karen, fjh, [Microsoft], Netflix, slightlyoff, +1.857.928.aagg, [Microsoft.a], ddahl
20:57:02 <arunranga> markw, still there?
20:57:05 <Zakim> Netflix has mwatson, scottk
20:57:05 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:57:05 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Tony_Nadalin
20:57:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see virginie, MichaelH_, israelh, timeless, mitchz, markw, scottk, ddahl, karen, arunranga, nvdbleek, Zakim, RRSAgent, sangrae, jyates, jeffh, ale, tobie, rsleevi, eroman,
20:57:06 <Zakim> ... slightlyoff, trackbot, wseltzer
20:57:49 <wseltzer> RESOLVED: Publish working draft as next heartbeat
20:58:23 <slightlyoff> great, thanks
20:58:51 <slightlyoff> is there an ical feed for this WG's meetings?
20:59:27 <Zakim> - +1.857.928.aagg
20:59:32 <Zakim> -slightlyoff
20:59:56 <Zakim> -Google
21:00:09 <Zakim> -Virginie_Galindo
21:00:10 <Zakim> -ddahl
21:00:10 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:00:11 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:00:12 <Zakim> -Netflix
21:00:14 <Zakim> -arunranga
21:00:15 <Zakim> -fjh
21:00:17 <Zakim> -karen
21:00:18 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
21:00:30 <MichaelH_> -MichaelH_
21:03:24 <arunranga> :)
21:15:31 <wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf
21:15:31 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:15:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.512.257.aaaa, +1.650.214.aabb, +1.415.294.aacc, rsleevi, Virginie_Galindo, MichaelH, nvdbleek, Wendy, arunranga, +1.512.257.aadd, karen,
21:15:34 <Zakim> ... fjh, Tony_Nadalin, +1.408.540.aaee, [Microsoft], ddahl, Israel, mwatson, scottk, +1.415.997.aaff, slightlyoff, +1.857.928.aagg
21:15:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:15:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/17-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
21:15:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:15:40 <RRSAgent> I see no action items