18:40:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
18:40:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-crypto-irc
18:40:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:40:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #crypto
18:40:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be CRYPT
18:40:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start in 20 minutes
18:40:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
18:40:57 <trackbot> Date: 10 March 2014
18:53:00 <terri> terri has joined #crypto
18:53:20 <hhalpin> Note that the call is in one hour, 20:00 UTC
18:53:54 <wseltzer> wseltzer has changed the topic to: WebCrypto call at 2000 UTC
19:26:53 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
19:51:15 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
19:52:16 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
19:52:24 <virginie> zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:52:24 <Zakim> ok, virginie; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start 52 minutes ago
19:52:59 <virginie> zakim, this is SEC_WebCryp
19:52:59 <Zakim> virginie, I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be SEC_WebCryp".
19:53:05 <virginie> zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:53:05 <Zakim> ok, virginie; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start 53 minutes ago
19:53:15 <virginie> agenda?
19:53:23 <virginie> agenda+ welcome
19:54:08 <virginie> agenda+ Decision to go for Last Call for the Web Crypto API and the Web Crypto Key Discovery API
19:54:23 <virginie> agenda+ Action plan to advert the Last Call status of our specs to the external world
19:54:25 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has now started
19:54:26 <sangrae> sangrae has joined #crypto
19:54:32 <Zakim> + +1.617.253.aaaa
19:54:38 <virginie> agenda+ Future Work of the WG
19:54:54 <jyates> Zakim, aaaa is jyates
19:54:54 <Zakim> +jyates; got it
19:55:01 <virginie> agenda+ Working Group Life (conf call rhythm, next F2F meeting in Spring, ...)
19:55:54 <virginie> helo joanne, the call will start in 5 minues
19:56:21 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #crypto
19:56:29 <hhalpin> Zakim, this is crypt
19:56:29 <Zakim> hhalpin, this was already SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM
19:56:30 <Zakim> ok, hhalpin; that matches SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM
19:56:46 <hhalpin> Zakim, what's the code?
19:56:46 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), hhalpin
19:56:50 <jyates> Virginie--thanks
19:56:56 <jyates> I don't hear anything now
19:57:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
19:57:57 <hhalpin> Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:57:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see jyates, [IPcaller]
19:58:20 <markw> markw has joined #crypto
19:59:25 <Zakim> +[Netflix]
19:59:34 <markw> Zakim, [Netflix] is me
19:59:34 <Zakim> +markw; got it
19:59:40 <Zakim> +virginie
19:59:46 <mete> mete has joined #crypto
19:59:52 <Zakim> -markw
20:00:15 <virginie> agenda?
20:00:29 <Zakim> +[Netflix]
20:00:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
20:00:43 <markw> Zakim, [Netflix] is me
20:00:44 <Zakim> +markw; got it
20:00:47 <virginie> zakim, who is on the call ?
20:00:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see jyates, [IPcaller], virginie, markw, [IPcaller.a]
20:00:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.aa]
20:01:27 <hhalpin> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
20:01:27 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
20:01:42 <hhalpin> chair: Virginie
20:01:51 <hhalpin> RRSAgent, generate minutes
20:01:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-crypto-minutes.html hhalpin
20:02:05 <drew> zakim, i am IPcaller.a
20:02:05 <Zakim> ok, drew, I now associate you with [IPcaller.a]
20:02:12 <virginie> zakim, IPcaller.aa is sangrae
20:02:12 <Zakim> +sangrae; got it
20:02:43 <hhalpin> Minutes from last telco: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/03-crypto-minutes.html
20:03:08 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe?
20:03:08 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, hhalpin.
20:03:10 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:10 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose markw
20:03:13 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:13 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose virginie
20:03:16 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:16 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose [IPcaller.a]
20:03:17 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:19 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose virginie
20:03:20 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:20 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose [IPcaller.a]
20:03:22 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
20:03:23 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose virginie
20:03:37 <vgb> vgb has joined #crypto
20:03:40 <hhalpin> scribe: hhalpin
20:03:45 <virginie> zakim, IPcaller.a is drew
20:03:45 <Zakim> +drew; got it
20:04:01 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:04:11 <vgb> zakim, [microsoft] is me
20:04:11 <Zakim> +vgb; got it
20:04:35 <virginie> zakim, who is on the call ?
20:04:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see jyates, hhalpin, virginie, markw, drew, sangrae, vgb
20:04:54 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:05:14 <israelh> israelh has joined #crypto
20:05:42 <virginie> zakim, who is on the call ?
20:05:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see jyates, hhalpin, virginie, markw, drew, sangrae, vgb, [Microsoft]
20:05:46 <Zakim> + +1.503.712.aabb
20:06:00 <terri> Zakim, aabb is me
20:06:00 <Zakim> +terri; got it
20:06:02 <hhalpin> Any objections to approve minutes from last call?
20:06:21 <virginie> agenda?
20:06:22 <hhalpin> APPROVED: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/03-crypto-minutes.html
20:07:09 <hhalpin> virginie: this meeting will make a decision on the Last Call
20:07:25 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has joined #crypto
20:07:38 <nvdbleek> zakim, code?
20:07:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nvdbleek
20:07:41 <hhalpin> ... we will now start being a bit more formal with minutes, formally approving them
20:08:06 <hhalpin> (given the formal decisions we will be making, we need to make sure they occur)
20:08:14 <hhalpin> (and are recorded accurately)
20:08:24 <hhalpin> Zakim, next agendum
20:08:24 <Zakim> agendum 1. "welcome" taken up [from virginie]
20:08:42 <hhalpin> topic: Last Call for WebCrypto API
20:08:45 <hhalpin> Zakim, next agendum
20:08:45 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, hhalpin
20:09:04 <hhalpin> virginie: status update on WebCrypto API?
20:09:25 <hhalpin> markw: We were pretty close on closing all the bugs that were identified the bugs
20:09:32 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
20:09:35 <hhalpin> ... ruled on favor of meaningful error codes as proposed by Microsoft
20:09:36 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:09:36 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:09:57 <hhalpin> ... bugs are still open because lack of confirm from rsleevi, but as far as I'm concerned its complete
20:10:14 <hhalpin> ... still some open bugs, but none in the category of needing to complete before entering last call.
20:10:21 <hhalpin> ... I think we're in good shape to go forward
20:10:30 <hhalpin> virginie: any questions that would challenge the idea of going to Last Call?
20:11:00 <hhalpin> markw: rsleevi isn't here, but rsleevi thinks that we may need to use JWK for Javascript Objects
20:11:09 <hhalpin> ... right now we support actual JWK objects
20:11:16 <hhalpin> ... should we go for them as actual JSON objects
20:11:24 <hhalpin> ... we discussed and rejected in past, no reason not to revisit
20:11:37 <hhalpin> ... not an alternative IMHO, could be a new potential feature
20:12:07 <hhalpin> virginie: any question to editor of the current spec?
20:12:19 <hhalpin> ... seems like there is no open questions
20:12:38 <virginie> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html
20:12:45 <virginie> from the 7th of march
20:13:16 <hhalpin> vgb: Should we put a comment about the JWK in the spec so folks know that is done by design
20:13:34 <hhalpin> markw: seems import/export is consistent as you always get serialized data
20:13:40 <hhalpin> ... now the idea to expose this in an object format
20:13:52 <vgb> s/vgb/israelh/
20:14:30 <hhalpin> markw: as for as I know, it's a new feature
20:14:33 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:14:42 <hhalpin> israelh: If we already identified that was something we don't want to cover now
20:14:57 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
20:15:06 <hhalpin> ... I think we should go into Last Call without making any more design last calls, going forward with this as a potential
20:15:09 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:15:09 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:15:10 <hhalpin> Zakim, who's making noise?
20:15:21 <Zakim> hhalpin, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: virginie (9%), [Microsoft] (100%)
20:15:22 <hhalpin> isarelh: it seems like we should just go ahead and get a resolution
20:15:32 <hhalpin> ... we could say its v2.0 feature
20:16:03 <hhalpin> virginie: I think this is not a feature that would not take so much time to agree on.
20:16:28 <hhalpin> ... we could wait for the next version of spec
20:17:18 <hhalpin> ... we said we would address JWK only in last call?
20:17:20 <hhalpin> q+
20:17:46 <hhalpin> markw: One time we discussed we should in context of wrap/unwrap object
20:18:03 <hhalpin> ... but we were looking at is as either-or
20:18:10 <hhalpin> ... we could postpone to v2.0
20:18:25 <israelh> q?
20:19:11 <markw> q+
20:19:22 <israelh> q+
20:19:25 <virginie> ack hhalpin
20:20:05 <vgb> q+
20:20:37 <markw> q-
20:21:30 <hhalpin> hhalpin: I am noting that rsleevi, who is an editor and represents Google is not on the call
20:21:44 <hhalpin> ... we could use this time to fix the JWK issue
20:22:09 <hhalpin> markw: would want to go to Last Call, feels like we do this later
20:22:40 <hhalpin> virginie: Apparently rsleevi wants to have the Last Call decision over email
20:22:44 <hhalpin> q+
20:23:10 <hhalpin> israelh: I think the last open issue was the error types
20:23:32 <hhalpin> ... he can express over email
20:23:45 <hhalpin> ... his concerns, or do we just go to Last Call now?
20:24:47 <markw> q+
20:24:48 <hhalpin> virginie: We can go to the telecon
20:24:52 <hhalpin> ... and make a telecon
20:25:04 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:25:23 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:25:23 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
20:25:23 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:27:21 <hhalpin> We make an initial decision here, but open it up to the mailing list
20:27:43 <hhalpin> and then we discuss with everyone in the WG that are open
20:27:57 <hhalpin> to confirming or formally objecting to the Last Call
20:28:16 <hhalpin> q+
20:28:59 <hhalpin> and then go to Last Call if everyone on mailing lists agrees in 2 weeks.
20:29:10 <rsleevi> rsleevi has joined #crypto
20:29:30 <hhalpin> If they don't, we either open new issues or go to Last Call.
20:29:33 <hhalpin> at the next telecon
20:29:35 <Zakim> +[Google]
20:29:50 <hhalpin> israelh: I'm OK with that, but we need to figure out if things are in scope or not
20:30:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-crypto-minutes.html rsleevi
20:30:11 <hhalpin> vgb: I think we've been stable for a very long time, so we should go to last call
20:31:34 <virginie> q?
20:31:38 <markw> q-
20:31:39 <hhalpin> q- hhalpin
20:31:44 <vgb> q-
20:31:48 <israelh> q-
20:32:20 <hhalpin> rsleevi: I'm going through the minutes, I don't entirely agree with Mark on the JWK regarding import/export
20:32:51 <hhalpin> ... I think we should explore other path, would it be appropriate to get feedback besides developers
20:33:08 <hhalpin> q+
20:33:09 <markw> q+
20:33:19 <hhalpin> ... I have gotten feedback that it is better
20:33:25 <israelh> q?
20:34:20 <hhalpin> rsleevi: we're still identifying blocking points because we're still getting
20:34:40 <hhalpin> ... another WD with a short last call or a Last Call with a longer feedback cycle
20:35:30 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:36:10 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
20:36:16 <israelh> q?
20:36:16 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:36:18 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:37:18 <hhalpin> we can either go for last call now if this is a developer issue, or if it's a Google issue then we could delay till last call.
20:37:48 <hhalpin> rsleevi: both, even in Google we think its unusable or we can wait for developers to tell us that
20:38:23 <hhalpin> markw: what we have is a JSON object, we also expose a Javascript version of JWK. But we could even do that to ASN.1
20:38:42 <hhalpin> ... so I don't think its unusable, that's an easy function for someone to do
20:38:52 <hhalpin> ... this idea has been clear for months and months
20:38:56 <hhalpin> q-
20:39:08 <hhalpin> ... we can deal with this at Last Call
20:39:52 <hhalpin> rsleevi: I want to re-iterate ASN.1 that this can be done as easily is false, most of DOM4 can be implemented as functions in JQuery, that may not be good for developers
20:40:25 <hhalpin> ... at the primary example, we just changed RSA and HMAC in breaking manner, and the mapping to JWK - those mapping tables show there are gaps within the scope and impedance mismatch between JWK and this spec
20:40:35 <hhalpin> q+
20:40:56 <markw> s/we also expose a Javascript version/the proposal is that we also expose a Javascript object/
20:40:56 <virginie> ack rsleevi
20:40:57 <hhalpin> ... we are revisiting, but it's clear that are several issues on usability
20:41:33 <rsleevi> @hhalpin: They're issues on our end (our spec)
20:42:10 <israelh> q+
20:42:37 <rsleevi> @hhalpin: Again, if we go to last call, I think we need to have a suitable last call period to allow feedback from everyone - that is, 3 weeks is not desirable
20:42:38 <hhalpin> Its not a big deal if a member wants 2 more weeks to review, it would be worrisome if the process never ended.
20:43:01 <hhalpin> So as long as we commit to addressing the issue, then I think that's fine.
20:43:12 <hhalpin> israelh: Is there a list of other issues that you have defined, or is this the last one?
20:43:28 <hhalpin> ... anything else major?
20:43:58 <hhalpin> rsleevi: we made a lot of changes in last month, some have overlapped, we are still not confident there's been review within the WG
20:44:19 <hhalpin> ... if we go to Last Call for not only Working Group members to review the spec, as well as the general public
20:44:32 <hhalpin> ... there's no confidence that the spec has been widely reviewed
20:44:42 <hhalpin> ... we are very concerned, especially with the compressed period
20:44:47 <israelh> q-
20:44:51 <hhalpin> q-
20:44:57 <Zakim> -[Google]
20:45:01 <hhalpin> virginie: this is normal to go forward
20:45:30 <Zakim> +[Google]
20:45:37 <hhalpin> ... I would suggest we go for Last Call and add a note to address the JWK issue during Last Call
20:46:14 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:46:23 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Go to Last Call and add a note with 8 weeks of review.
20:46:26 <virginie> Resolution : go for last call with a note calling for JWK javascript object with 8 weeks of review
20:46:28 <Zakim> +nvdbleek
20:46:30 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:46:30 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:47:27 <hhalpin> rsleevi: As aggressively we'd like to get Last Call, and I think 8 weeks is an appropriate time as once we ship we want to get changes
20:47:40 <israelh> q+
20:47:46 <hhalpin> ack rsleevi
20:48:07 <rsleevi> I can send it today.
20:48:09 <hhalpin> israelh: How do we feel as a group if we can get a proposal for solving the JWK issue within 2 weeks?
20:48:12 <markw> q+
20:48:45 <hhalpin> ... we just give a resolution to solve this, and then if this is an issue we need to solve from an implementer perspective, then we can move forward
20:48:55 <terri> q+
20:49:15 <hhalpin> virginie: New WD that solves this JWK issue, and then go Last Call
20:49:21 <hhalpin> ... just filling in the blanks
20:49:48 <hhalpin> markw: I think it would be better to go to Last Call now, if the proposal was to import/export Javascript Object
20:49:49 <rsleevi> @markw: That's no the proposal
20:50:02 <hhalpin> ... that's simple
20:50:19 <rsleevi> @markw: It doesn't break wrap/unwrap
20:50:24 <hhalpin> ... if the proposal is to replace existing JWK import/export that would break wrap/unwrap
20:50:37 <Zakim> -markw
20:50:43 <israelh> q+
20:50:48 <hhalpin> terri: Given we just spent another hour, then maybe we just publish new working draft
20:50:51 <terri> q-
20:50:54 <hhalpin> q- markw
20:51:15 <Zakim> +[Netflix]
20:51:23 <markw> Zakim, [Netflix] is markw
20:51:23 <Zakim> +markw; got it
20:51:28 <hhalpin> israelh: I'm wondering if what Mark suggested is a reasonable approach and then a way to JSON
20:51:47 <hhalpin> .. ize the objects that doesn't break wrap/unwrap
20:52:31 <hhalpin> rsleevi: My concern is do we make JWK an JSON Web Key object, I'm not sure if question of breaking wrap/unwrap - but what is suitble default, ArrayBuffer or object?
20:53:39 <hhalpin> virginie: We give ourselves 2 weeks way to solve JWK object question out, and then we go to Last Call. If there is no technical solution, then we replay the WD.
20:53:46 <hhalpin> ... we can't go to LC without this feature?
20:54:05 <hhalpin> rsleevi: If we go to LC then we have to forward with this as a continuing questions, we may make breaking changes
20:54:28 <markw> q+
20:54:37 <hhalpin> q+
20:54:46 <hhalpin> Why not 2 weeks and then Last Call?
20:55:05 <hhalpin> markw: 2 weeks deliverable doesn't seem to object
20:55:08 <hhalpin> q?
20:55:17 <hhalpin> ... we get message to developers sooner rather than later
20:55:26 <hhalpin> q+
20:56:37 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:56:49 <hhalpin> can we sort that in 2 weeks?
20:56:51 <vgb> how about get a proposal this week and discuss it next week so we can have a meaningful last call conversation in 2 weeks?
20:56:58 <hhalpin> and then we go to Last Call next meeting?
20:57:04 <markw> q+
20:57:22 <hhalpin> virginie: action to ryan and mark to have a technical proposal for this feature
20:57:35 <hhalpin> ... 2 weeks we go to Last Call?
20:57:41 <vgb> yes, i want to make sure we don't come to the next call saying we haven't had time to review the proposal
20:57:42 <hhalpin> Is this a workable plan?
20:58:05 <hhalpin> markw: I was arguing we go to Last Call now
20:58:22 <hhalpin> virginie: but I hear terri and rsleevi wanting to address this before we go to Last Call now
20:58:29 <rsleevi> I would like to clarify that
20:58:35 <rsleevi> I don't think my position is being represented
20:58:53 <hhalpin> israelh: Let's give ourselves a time limit of 2 weeks, and then we come up of a soltuion, then we go for standard last call
20:58:58 <hhalpin> ... seems reasonable
20:59:17 <markw> I can go with what Isreal says
20:59:31 <rsleevi> To re-iterate: If we decide *not* to block LC, then we need an extended LC and will likely revisit this.
20:59:51 <terri> I agree with israelh, just that we not make the decision in 1 minute since it's clear we don't really agree enough for last call today.
20:59:53 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Revisit Last Call in 2 weeks with action to solve this JWK
21:00:00 <hhalpin> ... issue
21:00:43 <hhalpin> rsleevi: proposal should be 8 weeks, regardless 2 week + 6 week last call
21:01:31 <vgb> i can write up a proposal fairly quickly for the JWK thing, and we cna discuss it on the list starting tomorrow. ok?
21:01:51 <rsleevi> @vgb: I can have it up today within a few hours
21:01:52 <hhalpin> terri: I would be OK with that
21:02:04 <vgb> @rsleevi even better :)
21:02:17 <rsleevi> The question for the WG is what should the *default* be for "JWK", which is where I think the only 'contention' is
21:03:50 <rsleevi> PROPOSAL: Take the current ED to LC for 8 weeks, with an "open issue" of JWK
21:04:11 <virginie> resolution : Last call with 8 weeks of comments with a note and an action to adress the JWK aspect
21:04:39 <markw> +1
21:04:44 <nvdbleek> +1
21:04:48 <sangrae> +1
21:04:58 <virginie> +1 (as gemalto)
21:05:05 <terri> -1, this feels rushed to me.
21:05:10 <terri> but it's fine if I'm outvoted.
21:05:13 <mete> +1
21:05:47 <rsleevi> +0 . It works. It's up to the WG what it wants to signal
21:06:00 <terri> -1 but I can live with the group consensus
21:06:08 <hhalpin> terri: I don't think it's a good idea but I can live with it
21:06:43 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: Going to Last Call and we ask for 8 weeks of review for Last Call.
21:06:55 <hhalpin> RRSAgent, generate minutes
21:06:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-crypto-minutes.html hhalpin
21:07:25 <hhalpin> virginie: next call 24th of march
21:07:42 <hhalpin> virginie: thanks everyone, let's close call.
21:07:53 <hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting
21:07:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:07:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.617.253.aaaa, jyates, markw, virginie, hhalpin, sangrae, drew, vgb, [Microsoft], +1.503.712.aabb, terri, nvdbleek, [Google]
21:07:56 <Zakim> -[Google]
21:07:56 <Zakim> -markw
21:07:56 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:07:57 <Zakim> -jyates
21:07:59 <Zakim> -drew
21:08:00 <Zakim> -virginie
21:08:00 <Zakim> -hhalpin
21:08:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:08:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
21:08:01 <Zakim> -sangrae
21:08:01 <Zakim> -vgb
21:08:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:08:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
21:08:05 <Zakim> -terri