08:53:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
08:53:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-crypto-irc
08:53:49 <virginie> Zakim, what conference do you see ?
08:53:49 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, virginie.
08:53:59 <virginie> Zakim, what conferences do you see ?
08:53:59 <Zakim> I see no active conferences
08:54:00 <Zakim> scheduled at this time are SEC_WebCryp()4:00AM, Team_Offices(EMEA)4:00AM
08:55:32 <virginie> Zakim, this conference is sec_webcrypt
08:55:32 <Zakim> sorry, virginie, I do not see a conference named 'sec_webcrypt' in progress or scheduled at this time
08:55:45 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
08:55:56 <virginie> hello mountie
08:56:01 <mountie> hello
08:56:16 <virginie> looks like we have no conf call booked, let me see what i can do...
08:56:18 <mountie> am I wight time?
08:56:23 <virginie> yes
08:56:39 <mountie> ok
08:57:22 <virginie> zakim, this conference will be sec_webcrypt_asia
08:57:22 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, virginie
08:59:13 <mountie> is the conference code is 27978# or 26632#?
09:00:04 <virginie> problem is that no bridge has been booked
09:00:18 <virginie> i am sending new details for the call
09:00:34 <mountie> aha.  ok.
09:00:58 <virginie> lets join under +33155015500      (french number)
09:01:16 <virginie> with the code : 83693450#
09:01:20 <mountie> I will
09:03:01 <virginie> hi all
09:04:08 <virginie> anyone wanting to join the discussion about web crypto WG is invited to join on +33155015500 with access 83693450#
09:07:45 <sangrae> sangrae has joined #crypto
09:08:01 <virginie> hello sangrae anyone wanting to join the discussion about web crypto WG is invited to join on +33155015500 with access 83693450#
09:08:21 <mountie> hi. sandrae
09:08:25 <virginie> (apologize for badly managing the call booking)
09:08:49 <sangrae> I tried to call that number. but didn't ask me access code.
09:09:20 <virginie> can u hear us ?
09:09:32 <mountie> I can hear you
09:09:51 <virginie> sangrae, can u hear us ?
09:10:25 <virginie> sangrae, did we loose u ?
09:18:05 <virginie> Mark status on web crypto API : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Feb/0027.html
09:21:00 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #crypto
09:21:22 <hhalpin> Zakim, this is crypt
09:21:22 <Zakim> hhalpin, I see SEC_WebCryp()4:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be crypt".
09:23:46 <virginie> anyone wanting to join the discussion about web crypto WG is invited to join on +33155015500 with access 83693450#
09:24:08 <hhalpin> virginie, did anyone join?
09:24:28 <virginie> Bug 24457 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24457>* - AES-KW can only wrap a JWK key if its serialization happens to be 8*n bytes long
09:24:32 <hhalpin> it appears Zakim has it booked in 30 minutes.
09:24:53 <hhalpin> I'll send adminreq a message correcting so we start an hour earlier.
09:25:03 <virginie> (to harry, yes we have sangrae, mountie and kishan from typhone
09:25:07 <hhalpin> Excellent!
09:25:07 <virginie> )
09:25:37 <hhalpin> Let me change the booking time so the code works properly next time.
09:28:06 <virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/WG_Future_Work
09:28:21 <hhalpin> ok, correction sent
09:28:30 <hhalpin> So next time, the code should work.
09:29:07 <hhalpin> Quick update - W3C is discussing Asian presence at WWW2014 in W3C developer track, I'd like to dial-in briefly to discuss.
09:29:26 <hhalpin> We'd like to discuss Korean use-cases in particular at the track in terms of scoping future work.
09:31:13 <hhalpin> mountie: we don't know how private keys are protected and managed
09:31:19 <hhalpin> ... we are trying to set some guidelines
09:31:33 <hhalpin> ... maybe not normative, but at least guidelines
09:33:07 <hhalpin> virginie: is use-case hardware token or software
09:33:10 <hhalpin> mountie: both
09:33:16 <hhalpin> ... who owns the key?
09:33:24 <hhalpin> ... does it belong to the provisioner?
09:33:39 <hhalpin> .... if we really accept hardware tokens or secure element, the key owner belongs to the user
09:33:58 <virginie> thanks harry for scribing
09:33:58 <hhalpin> ... some concerns can we match those requirements
09:34:26 <hhalpin> virginie: clarify two things, the way the credentials are secured
09:34:34 <hhalpin> ... way they are managed by the ownership
09:35:00 <hhalpin> ... can you write down the requirements?
09:35:09 <virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Deliverable_web_certificate_API
09:36:49 <hhalpin> the asian call is prior to the US call.
09:37:29 <hhalpin> q+
09:37:53 <hhalpin> virginie: on issue of key ownership, how would you implement that?
09:38:20 <hhalpin> ... keys that work cross-origin, would you provision the authorized origin to deal with the key?
09:38:46 <hhalpin> mountie: if the key is combined with a certificate, we set exceptions via same origin policy
09:38:52 <hhalpin> s/via/to
09:39:13 <hhalpin> mountie: we also need some form of user-consent, password, pin, biometrics
09:39:22 <hhalpin> ... for use or access of the key
09:39:49 <hhalpin> virginie: access whatever key plus certificate, with no limitation up to user for final version
09:39:56 <hhalpin> ... or more of a whitelist or blacklist
09:40:01 <hhalpin> hhalpin: whitelists are usually safer
09:40:27 <hhalpin> folks should look at how CORS works
09:40:42 <hhalpin> mountine: key genreated by site A, but can be accessed for signing data in different websites
09:40:53 <hhalpin> s/mountine/mountie
09:41:28 <hhalpin> CORS basically gives you a whitelist-like mechanism
09:41:48 <hhalpin> mountie: Not so much people agreed
09:42:01 <hhalpin> You may also want to approach the questions re CORS to the WebApp and WebAppSec WG
09:43:57 <virginie> harry suggesting to look at CORS and see how to use it for local ressources
09:44:44 <virginie> and communicate with the WebAppSec after CORS/Web Crypto API go to Last Call
09:45:24 <hhalpin> Off top of head, CORS is best bet, although they won't have the UA stuff you want.
09:45:46 <hhalpin> mountie: exceptions would be best, postMessage would be second-choice
09:49:06 <hhalpin> happy to do quick intro over CORS
09:49:42 <hhalpin> www2014.kr
09:49:46 <hhalpin> April 7-11th 2014
09:49:56 <hhalpin> WebCrypto Next Steps Session
09:50:05 <virginie> http://www2014.kr/
09:50:05 <hhalpin> 90 minutes maybe 180 minutes
09:53:22 <hhalpin> We are considering Sept 2014 in Washington DC
09:58:33 <hhalpin> Will send emails out
09:58:41 <hhalpin> Zakim, generate minutes
09:58:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'generate minutes', hhalpin
09:58:55 <hhalpin> Zakim, create minutes
09:58:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'create minutes', hhalpin
10:04:00 <rigo> rrsagent, please draft minutes
10:04:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-crypto-minutes.html rigo
10:04:30 <rigo> rrsagent, please set log public
10:22:25 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
10:37:27 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
10:52:27 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
11:07:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
11:22:28 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
11:37:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
11:52:27 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
12:07:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
12:22:31 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
12:37:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
12:52:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
13:07:15 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
13:22:25 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
13:37:23 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
13:52:23 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
15:02:57 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
15:03:21 <drew> drew has left #crypto
15:08:13 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
15:08:25 <drew> drew has left #crypto
15:09:08 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
15:09:30 <drew> drew has left #crypto
15:19:00 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto
15:38:58 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
15:56:00 <jyates_> jyates_ has joined #crypto
15:56:25 <jyates> jyates has left #crypto
15:56:45 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
15:59:04 <malaclyps> malaclyps has joined #crypto
16:04:49 <tantek> tantek has joined #crypto
17:37:50 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #crypto
17:37:53 <hhalpin> Zakim, this is CRYPT
17:37:53 <Zakim> sorry, hhalpin, I do not see a conference named 'CRYPT' in progress or scheduled at this time
17:38:04 <hhalpin> Zakim, this will be CRYPT
17:38:04 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, hhalpin
18:06:40 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
18:09:20 <terri> terri has joined #crypto
18:13:55 <malaclyps> malaclyps has joined #crypto
19:22:27 <malaclyps> malaclyps has joined #crypto
19:33:44 <tantek> tantek has joined #crypto
19:44:32 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
19:53:05 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
19:53:46 <virginie> zakim, what conferences do you see?
19:53:46 <Zakim> I see no active conferences
19:53:47 <Zakim> scheduled at this time are RWC_Audio()2:00PM, XML_CG()3:00PM, W3C_DOCS()2:00PM, PP_PSIG()3:00PM, WAI_PFWG(A11Y)3:00PM, SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM
19:54:39 <virginie> zakim, this is SEC_WebCryp
19:54:39 <Zakim> virginie, I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be SEC_WebCryp".
19:54:42 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
19:54:52 <virginie> zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:54:52 <Zakim> ok, virginie; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
19:55:05 <virginie> agenda?
19:56:05 <virginie> zakim,  clear agenda
19:56:05 <Zakim> agenda cleared
19:56:12 <virginie> agenda+ Welcome
19:56:51 <virginie> agenda+ Status on actions
19:57:07 <virginie> agenda+ Status on Web Crypto API issues
19:57:20 <virginie> agenda+ Status on Web Crypto API
19:57:43 <virginie> agenda+ informal F2F in London on 27th of feb
19:57:56 <virginie> agenda+ AOB
19:59:06 <jimsch> jimsch has joined #crypto
19:59:48 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has now started
19:59:56 <Zakim> +terri
20:00:09 <Zakim> + +1.617.253.aaaa
20:00:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:00:27 <Zakim> +??P7
20:00:37 <jyates> zakim, aaaa is jyates
20:00:37 <Zakim> +jyates; got it
20:00:37 <virginie> zakim, who is on hte phone ?
20:00:39 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, virginie.
20:00:47 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:00:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see terri, jyates, [IPcaller], ??P7
20:00:51 <Zakim> +[Apple]
20:01:16 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:01:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see terri, jyates, [IPcaller], ??P7, [Apple]
20:03:04 <virginie> [IPcaller]  is me
20:03:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
20:03:26 <virginie> zakim, IPcaller is me
20:03:26 <Zakim> +virginie; got it
20:03:29 <markw> markw has joined #crypto
20:03:43 <jimsch> zakrim, ipcaller.a is me
20:03:56 <jimsch> zakim, ipcaller.a is me
20:03:56 <Zakim> +jimsch; got it
20:04:02 <Zakim> +[Netflix]
20:04:28 <markw> Zakim, [Netflix] is me
20:04:28 <Zakim> +markw; got it
20:04:29 <Zakim> +rsleevi
20:04:44 <virginie> zakim, ??P7 is drew
20:04:44 <Zakim> +drew; got it
20:04:58 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:04:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see terri, jyates, virginie, drew, [Apple], jimsch, markw, rsleevi
20:06:46 <virginie> agenda?
20:07:20 <karen_> karen_ has joined #crypto
20:08:19 <Zakim> +Karen
20:09:17 <rsleevi> scribenick: rsleevi
20:09:22 <rsleevi> scribe: Ryan Sleevi
20:09:37 <virginie> wg members to have a look http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/actions/open
20:09:41 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:09:48 <rsleevi> virginie: WG members should take a look at the open ACTION items
20:10:06 <israelh> israelh has joined #Crypto
20:10:16 <rsleevi> ... if there are any items that should be closed, just close your ACTION item. No need to go through the WG before doing so
20:10:48 <rsleevi> ... in the same spirit, there's also a set of open ISSUEs
20:10:55 <virginie> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/open
20:11:02 <rsleevi> ... specifically those related to the Web Crypto API
20:11:42 <rsleevi> ... Going to LC requires that there be no open ISSUEs, but we have some still open. There has been some discussion on the mailing list for closing/resolving some, but it seems there remain some items
20:11:46 <rsleevi> ISSUE-12?
20:11:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Should the API distinguish between algorithm and operation parameters? -- open
20:11:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/12
20:12:01 <rsleevi> q+
20:13:31 <rsleevi> rsleevi: vgb sent a mail to the list several weeks (months?) ago suggesting he didn't really have any concrete proposals
20:13:56 <rsleevi> ... I suggest we close this issue. There's some small tweaks related to the status update, but as a whole, we don't have any good proposals for such a large API change
20:13:58 <rsleevi> ISSUE-28?
20:13:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-28 -- Short-names for algorithms -- open
20:13:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/28
20:14:25 <rsleevi> ISSUE-35?
20:14:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Handling of wrap/unwrap operations -- open
20:14:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/35
20:14:29 <markw> q+
20:14:53 <rsleevi> markw: I think we've addressed these in the latest ED. I think we can close this issue
20:14:57 <israelh> I closed ISSUE-59 : http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/59 based on the conversation at the F2F in China.
20:15:04 <rsleevi> +1 to closeing ISSUE-35
20:15:55 <jimsch> 35
20:16:05 <jimsch> sory 43
20:16:08 <rsleevi> ISSUE-43?
20:16:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Separate method for key agreement -- open
20:16:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/43
20:16:11 <kodonog> kodonog has joined #crypto
20:16:16 <rsleevi> q+
20:17:37 <rsleevi> rsleevi: This is another one that I believe we resolved on the mailing list
20:18:10 <rsleevi> ... The main people who raised concern expressed acceptance with the API for deriveKey/deriveBits
20:18:34 <Zakim> +karen_oDonoghue
20:18:35 <rsleevi> virginie: Will suggest on the mailing list to close ISSUE-43
20:19:05 <jimsch> 44
20:19:07 <rsleevi> ISSUE-44?
20:19:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- Require creation of random IVs by default for CBC, CFB, GCM -- open
20:19:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/44
20:20:03 <rsleevi> virginie: Contacted rbarnes to attempt to gather more information. We discussed during the F2F, and then rbarnes was silent on this.
20:20:12 <rsleevi> ... attempt to contact richard one last time, and then close this
20:20:14 <rsleevi> ISSUE-46?
20:20:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Optional algorithm parameters must have default values -- open
20:20:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/46
20:20:22 <kodonog> I just pinged richard… he is coming now
20:20:44 <rsleevi> virginie: Another situation where discussed with richard but not concrete solution
20:21:01 <rsleevi> ISSUE-59?
20:21:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Promises Programming Pattern Verification -- closed
20:21:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/59
20:21:15 <Zakim> +??P25
20:22:45 <rsleevi> rbarnes: Will take a look in the next few days and continue discussion on the list
20:22:56 <rsleevi> virginie: Just a reminder that we need to have 0 ISSUEs open before LC
20:24:15 <virginie> status by the editor : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Feb/0028.html
20:24:23 <rsleevi> markw: Briefly, I took the 15 bugs that we identified as required for last call as Pre-LC
20:24:56 <rsleevi> virginie: In this mail, there were some further discussions, correct?
20:25:54 <rsleevi> markw: The ones that are open are the ones that we could spend time discussing here if we think we can resolve here
20:26:14 <rsleevi> ... JWK format, raw AES access, and adding an additional curve to the named curve registry
20:26:21 <rbarnes> rbarnes has joined #crypto
20:26:22 <rsleevi> ... also a discussion on making all method failures asynchronous
20:26:38 <virginie> > *Bug **24427* <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24427>
20:26:49 <jimsch> q+
20:26:54 <rsleevi> +1 to making all failures async, in case it wasn't clear
20:27:17 <virginie> q?
20:27:37 <rsleevi> jimsch: In addition to specifying whether failures should be asynchronous, should we also specify failures should be constant time
20:27:43 <jimsch> q-
20:28:23 <markw> rsleevi: Dpn't believe we need to make any statements about constant time
20:28:52 <markw> ... it would be a quality of implementation issue for the algorithm-specific stuff
20:29:06 <markw> ... can't really interop test it
20:29:38 <markw> ... an it doesn't necessarily invalidate an implementation if it is later discovered that it is not constant time
20:30:04 <markw> ... also, it's not clear how we would defined an interop requirement
20:30:26 <rbarnes> +1 to rsleevi
20:30:34 <markw> ... for example, for RSA, there are quality of implementation issues around the quality of the primes etc.
20:30:48 <rsleevi> +1 to adding to security considerations ( I think we did already )
20:31:25 <rsleevi> virginie: So is your proposal jimsh that we add it to security considerations
20:31:33 <rsleevi> jimsch: I'll have to think about it, but I think that sounds right
20:32:15 <rsleevi> virginie: Can raise that discussion on the mailing list
20:32:40 <israelh> q+
20:32:41 <rsleevi> markw: Bug 24444
20:33:08 <rsleevi> israelh: Just really quickly on the previous bug, are we suggesting to do all the failures asynchronous
20:33:14 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:33:16 <israelh> q-
20:33:32 <virginie> Bug 24444 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24444>
20:33:33 <rsleevi> @israel: Yeah, all failures async. This also will require some prose regarding the WebIDL conversions
20:33:44 <rsleevi> virginie: What is the suggested resolution?
20:34:21 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:34:48 <israelh> I
20:34:52 <israelh> I'm back
20:35:15 <jimsch> +1 on not including
20:35:35 <rsleevi> rsleevi: My feeling is that this curve is actually not widely implemented (eg: CNG, nor CSSM I believe). I addressed this on the list that unless we here from implementors requesting it, it would be better to leave it off for now
20:35:47 <virginie> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24444
20:35:48 <rsleevi> markw: I would rather we decide something, either way, and close it
20:35:50 <rbarnes> my inclination is to include it, just because identifiers are cheap, and developers are going to have to check for support anyway
20:36:00 <rbarnes> but i don't feel that strongly
20:36:11 <rsleevi> @rbarnes: It affects our ability to move the spec to REC, regarding compatible implementations
20:36:24 <rsleevi> @rbarnes: Thats why I suggest we defer until implementors actually request it / suggest implementing it
20:36:27 <karen_> q+
20:36:42 <rbarnes> @rsleevi: i thought we had already agreed that we would not have requirements for specific algorithms / curves ?
20:36:48 <rbarnes> looooong ago
20:36:48 <rsleevi> karen: I think that particular curve is not in NIST
20:36:50 <rsleevi> q+
20:37:04 <markw> q+
20:37:06 <jimsch> curve 25519 is the current hot curve to adopt in the IETF at the moment
20:37:21 <rbarnes> jimsch: let's not go there
20:37:33 <rsleevi> rsleevi: Part of SEC 1 / NIST, not part of Suite B
20:37:44 <jimsch> rbarnes: that is why I said don't adopt
20:38:08 <rbarnes> jimsch: that's different; djb has a whole different point representation etc
20:38:24 <rsleevi> virginie: Sounds like from the discussion the answer is "no" but we'll wait to hear back from israel
20:38:35 <rsleevi> israelh: My guess/vote is "no" - less is more
20:38:46 <rbarnes> i'm not hearing a lot of "yes'
20:39:09 <terri> +1 to closing pending more info
20:39:10 <rsleevi> markw: We can close this with NEEDSINFO, with the info needed being implementors wanting to implement it
20:39:11 <rsleevi> +1
20:39:13 <rbarnes> +1
20:40:39 <rsleevi> virginie: BUG 24457
20:40:44 <virginie> Bug 24457 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24457>*
20:41:03 <rsleevi> q+
20:41:24 <jimsch> q+
20:42:06 <virginie> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24457
20:43:40 <markw> q+
20:43:54 <rsleevi> richard: Is this a result of JOSE choosing the simpler form of key wrap
20:44:24 <rsleevi> jimsch: There was some discussion of this on the mailing list. On the mailing list, the discussion was "If it's not 8*n bytes long,  you can't use it. Tough"
20:45:01 <rsleevi> ... the choice of IV was fairly arbitrary and not based on security decisions, it just needed to be a constant
20:45:30 <rsleevi> ... the question I have for Mark is, we did have a conversation about this, what more is desired
20:46:30 <rsleevi> markw: That's correct, that resolution is fine for the AES-KW case. The thing I pointed out on the bug is that it's possible for implementations to generate a JWK that is aligned to 8*n bytes - by using additional whitespace or additional members with junk data, for example
20:47:09 <rsleevi> ... based on that, Ryan made some comments that the flexibility just described (the non-canonical nature of the JSON) raised concerns regarding the security properties of AES-KW being based on being a canonical representation
20:47:45 <rsleevi> ... so there's no question about reversing the previous decision, the question is just whether there's a fundamental security question with wrapping JWKs with AES-KW as opposed to AES-GCM
20:47:53 <rsleevi> virginie: Let's have a follow-up on the mailing list on this bug
20:48:45 <rsleevi> jimsh: no security considerations that I can think of
20:49:10 <markw> q-
20:49:15 <virginie> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/54174/February2014/
20:49:53 <markw> q+
20:49:55 <rsleevi> virginie: Because there has been very short notice regarding this F2F, it would be good to know who will be able to be in attendance
20:50:58 <rsleevi> markw: If we would be able to spend a portion of the time resolving issues and making sure the spec is ready for LC, I think I could justify attending, but if it's just going to be discussion future work, it's harder to reason
20:51:34 <rsleevi> virginie: It's harder because this is an informal meeting
20:52:07 <rsleevi> markw: I don't think formal or informal matters much, since we close things by reaching consensus, and we reach consensus by talking about things, and we can talk informal or formal. If informal, we can just reach formal consensus on the mailing list
20:52:15 <rsleevi> -1 for attending
20:52:20 <virginie> +1
20:52:22 <rbarnes> +.8
20:52:25 <israelh> -1
20:52:29 <drew> -1
20:52:31 <karen_> 0
20:52:34 <jimsch> -1
20:52:35 <kodonog> -1 previous commitment conflicts
20:52:37 <terri> -1
20:52:39 <jimsch> have to leave
20:52:43 <Zakim> -jimsch
20:52:53 <rbarnes> just me and virginie!
20:53:45 <rsleevi> virginie: It seems like there will be very few people attending. May be worth considering cancelling. Going to reach a "last call" of sorts on the mailing list this week
20:54:13 <rsleevi> markw: An alternative would be to consider a longer call to deal with the issues going towards LC
20:54:33 <rsleevi> virginie: So for example a 2 hour call for the next two calls
20:54:39 <virginie> +1
20:55:20 <rsleevi> israelh: What about a special meeting that goes 2 hours (only one) that just identifies all the issues we should go through and make sure that everybody that needs to be there can be there
20:55:49 <rsleevi> q+
20:57:45 <Zakim> -[Apple]
20:59:42 <rsleevi> rsleevi: next call (2 weeks) is when markw and I are supposed to deliver "LC-ready" spec. Following call the WG will vote on adopting it as LC
21:00:21 <rsleevi> rsleevi: So first call being 2 hours will allow markw and I to discuss and debrief about any open issues or questions, then following call can allow WG members to discuss issues seen
21:01:05 <rsleevi> israelh: Would it make more sense to have 1 hour call in two weeks for debrief, and then a following week have a 1 hour call to discuss issues, then follow with another 1 hour call for debrief
21:01:41 <rsleevi> virginie: What about a 2 hour call for our next call, followed by a 1 hour call the next week, followed by the regular call
21:01:52 <rsleevi> +1 to 2,1,1 plan (if I understood correctly)
21:01:58 <rsleevi> and also 2,1,2 if necessary
21:02:09 <rbarnes> rsleevi: yeah that's sounds find to me
21:02:37 <rsleevi> virginie: Plan was 2 hours call in two weeks, 1 hour call week following (which may conflict with IETF), followed by 2 hour call
21:03:18 <rsleevi> ... reminder for people that we will potentially have a workshop in September, potentially in Washington DC, to discuss hardware tokens
21:03:42 <rsleevi> ... still need to send out a strawman proposal for the workshop
21:04:43 <rsleevi> virginie: Next meeting will be 24 of Feb. will ask W3C staff to make meeting a 2 hour meeting.
21:04:51 <rbarnes> starting at the same time?
21:04:55 <Zakim> -jyates
21:04:57 <Zakim> -markw
21:04:58 <Zakim> -rbarnes
21:04:58 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:05:00 <Zakim> -virginie
21:05:01 <Zakim> -Karen
21:05:04 <Zakim> -drew
21:05:04 <Zakim> -terri
21:05:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-crypto-minutes.html rsleevi
21:05:37 <Zakim> -karen_oDonoghue
21:07:01 <Zakim> -rsleevi
21:07:02 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has ended
21:07:02 <Zakim> Attendees were terri, +1.617.253.aaaa, jyates, [Apple], virginie, jimsch, markw, rsleevi, drew, Karen, [Microsoft], karen_oDonoghue, rbarnes
21:51:45 <malaclyps> malaclyps has joined #crypto
22:17:29 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
22:48:37 <malaclyps> malaclyps has joined #crypto
23:24:56 <terri> terri has joined #crypto
23:27:09 <mountie> mountie has joined #crypto