18:47:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
18:47:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-irc
18:47:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:47:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #crypto
18:47:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be CRYPT
18:47:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
18:47:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
18:47:31 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2014
18:48:21 <harry> agenda+ welcome
18:48:26 <harry> agenda+ review of bugs by editors
18:48:33 <harry> agenda+ decision to exit last call
18:48:36 <harry> agenda+ next steps
18:48:40 <harry> agenda + TPAC
18:48:49 <harry> agenda + vNext workshop
18:57:12 <wseltzer> wseltzer has changed the topic to: 29 Sept. 2000 UTC Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Sep/0205.html
19:07:39 <harry> Zakim, who's on the phone?
19:07:39 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has not yet started, harry
19:07:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, harry, jarrednicholls, ale, w3, tobie, slightlyoff, schuki, timeless, terri, wseltzer, trackbot
19:07:56 <wseltzer> [the call is in one hour]
19:17:07 <rsleevi> rsleevi has joined #crypto
19:40:47 <harry> harry has joined #crypto
19:40:54 <harry> harry has joined #crypto
19:41:19 <harry> q?
19:56:00 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has joined #crypto
19:56:17 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
19:58:38 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has now started
19:58:45 <Zakim> + +1.503.712.aaaa
19:58:52 <mdwood> mdwood has joined #crypto
19:58:58 <MichaelH> MichaelH has joined #crypto
19:59:15 <Zakim> + +1.512.257.aabb
19:59:32 <virginie> zakim, aabb is me
19:59:34 <Zakim> +virginie; got it
19:59:40 <Zakim> +Michael_Hutchinson
19:59:44 <virginie> zakim, who is on the call ?
19:59:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.503.712.aaaa, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson
19:59:46 <Zakim> +Wendy
19:59:54 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
19:59:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.503.712.aaaa, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy
20:00:08 <wseltzer> zakim, aaaa is Matt_Wood
20:00:08 <Zakim> +Matt_Wood; got it
20:00:44 <virginie> agenda?
20:01:48 <Zakim> + +1.650.275.aacc
20:01:52 <nvdbleek> zakim, code?
20:01:52 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nvdbleek
20:02:23 <markw> markw has joined #crypto
20:02:24 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:02:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Wood, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Google
20:02:27 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:02:33 <vgb> vgb has joined #crypto
20:02:35 <harry> harry has joined #crypto
20:02:57 <harry> Zakim, what's the code?
20:02:57 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
20:03:13 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:03:16 <rbarnes> rbarnes has joined #crypto
20:03:23 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:03:24 <rbarnes> i'm on the way
20:03:35 <vgb> zakim, [microsoft] is me
20:03:35 <Zakim> +vgb; got it
20:03:41 <Zakim> +[Netflix]
20:03:44 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #crypto
20:03:58 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:03:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Wood, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Google, vgb, selfissued, [Netflix]
20:03:59 <markw> Zakim, [Netflix] is me
20:04:01 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:04:01 <Zakim> +markw; got it
20:04:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:04:56 <harry> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
20:04:56 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
20:05:01 <virginie> agenda?
20:05:12 <rbarnes> zakim, what's the dial-in?
20:05:12 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, rbarnes.
20:05:21 <harry> Zakim, what's the code?
20:05:21 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
20:05:28 <wseltzer> zakim, who is scribing?
20:05:28 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, wseltzer.
20:05:39 <harry> Zakim, pick a scribe?
20:05:39 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, harry.
20:05:43 <harry> Zakim, pick a victim
20:05:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose virginie
20:05:47 <harry> Zakim, pick a victim
20:05:47 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose virginie
20:05:48 <harry> Zakim, pick a victim
20:05:49 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hhalpin
20:05:58 <harry> chair: Virginie
20:06:01 <harry> scribe: hhalpin
20:06:05 <israelh> israelh has joined #crypto
20:06:06 <Zakim> + +1.434.941.aadd
20:06:13 <rbarnes> zakim, aadd is me
20:06:13 <Zakim> +rbarnes; got it
20:06:14 <harry> Virginie: Welcome everyone
20:06:21 <harry> ... we'll review the bugs with the editors
20:06:30 <rbarnes> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:06:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Wood, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Google, vgb, selfissued, markw, hhalpin, rbarnes
20:06:33 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:06:36 <harry> ... then try to make formal decision to exit last call
20:06:41 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:06:45 <harry> ... just to clarify, as regards rsleevi's call
20:07:00 <harry> ... we'll have two weeks notice for opposition to the mailing list
20:07:06 <harry> ... we'll also discussion decision for next steps
20:07:10 <harry> ... and our f2f meeting
20:07:15 <Zakim> +??P7
20:07:23 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:07:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Wood, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Google, vgb, selfissued, markw, hhalpin, rbarnes, [Microsoft], ??P7
20:07:24 <harry> ... discussion over deliverables of v.Next workshop 3 weeks ago
20:07:24 <nvdbleek> zakim, I am ??P7
20:07:26 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:07:26 <Zakim> +nvdbleek; got it
20:07:34 <harry> [roll call]
20:07:52 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:07:52 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:08:41 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 2
20:08:41 <Zakim> agendum 2. "review of bugs by editors" taken up [from harry]
20:08:43 <harry> topic: bug review
20:09:08 <markw> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpc7Q7o4nxoKjYT8Qx4MhueQ-rUuIIM53yp7miUuxnw/edit?usp=sharing
20:09:46 <harry> markw: extensibility approach
20:09:56 <markw> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html#rsa-oaep
20:09:56 <harry> ... so basically we went over two areas
20:10:09 <harry> ... how we might do extensibility
20:10:20 <harry> ... for example, adding hash algorithms
20:10:22 <wseltzer> q+
20:10:39 <harry> wseltzer: Are we all looking at the same list?
20:11:01 <wseltzer> "recent changes" tab
20:11:04 <wseltzer> q-
20:11:06 <harry> markw: Changes are in reverse order of time fixed
20:11:32 <harry> ... for RSA-OEAP, how do you add a new hash algorithm?
20:11:50 <harry> ... how could they add that hash algorithm without monkey-patching
20:12:04 <harry> ... making changes so that people have no ideas what will happen in future
20:12:12 <harry> ... we will instead give future extension points that are explicit
20:12:23 <harry> ... as far as things go
20:12:43 <harry> ... where it comes in first is "import key"
20:12:50 <harry> ... see Annevk's post on the list
20:13:04 <harry> ... other specs may specify use of additional hash algorithms
20:13:38 <rsleevi> I don't understand how this addresses extensibility
20:13:42 <rsleevi> you never make to step 3, do you?
20:14:12 <harry> ... we say other specs can specify additional procedures and insert them into import procedures
20:14:16 <rsleevi> This seems to allow some other specification to wholly replace the import steps
20:14:19 <rsleevi> e.g. bypass steps 3+
20:14:22 <rsleevi> which doesn't seem desirable
20:14:29 <selfissued> q+
20:14:49 <harry> ack selfissued
20:15:07 <rbarnes> rsleevi: step 3 of which procedure?
20:15:07 <rsleevi> I was trying not to queue so that we can make progress on this call, while still raising the concern so that we can carry on
20:15:19 <rsleevi> Step 3 of Import Key ( https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html#rsa-oaep )
20:15:23 <harry> if you know what to do rsleevi, do tell us!
20:15:42 <rsleevi> the current Step 2 language is equivalent to saying "Any other spec can wholly replace this section"
20:16:10 <harry> selfissued: "Other specifications" are the keyword, other specs in the algorithm in section 20, where I expected it to say "other specs may define new algorithm names", I didn't see that. Did you say it using different words?
20:16:50 <rsleevi> q+
20:16:51 <rbarnes> i think i'm +1 to rsleevi here.  we don't need to provide forward references here -- wherever there's a list of fixed strings, there's an extensibility point
20:16:54 <drew> drew has joined #crypto
20:17:22 <harry> markw: I don't think you need to say anything cause we already have the algorithm string here
20:17:31 <harry> selfissued: I'd just suggest repeating the same language
20:17:35 <virginie> q?
20:17:39 <harry> markw: I'll file a bug and do that.
20:17:40 <harry> ack rsleevi
20:17:54 <harry> rsleevi: So I have some concerns with this approach
20:18:13 <harry> ... any other spec can redefine the RSA-OEAP key *entirely*
20:18:17 <harry> which is pretty concerning for me
20:18:29 <Zakim> + +1.503.528.aaee
20:18:36 <harry> rsleevi: Could we move the step to "importKey" to the concrete extension points within the spec
20:18:39 <harry> ... so if you move it to step 3
20:19:01 <harry> ... there's a place, if we match all the way to step 3, then we can constrain the other specs
20:19:12 <harry> ... so we don't have to respecify other specs entirely
20:19:14 <rbarnes> +1 to ryan
20:19:14 <Karen> Karen has joined #crypto
20:19:18 <harry> ... there are things we don't think into a parameter
20:19:25 <harry> ... for example, SPKI and JWK
20:19:30 <virginie> q?
20:20:01 <rsleevi> I'm not sure where you're talking about "says up above" mark - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html#dfn-applicable-specifications is a dead link
20:20:07 <harry> maekw: it  is intention that we can constrain that explicitly
20:20:24 <harry> ... embedding the other points
20:20:44 <harry> ... you have to make a tradeoff
20:21:01 <harry> ... my preference is constraining not in  the future
20:21:01 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:21:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Matt_Wood, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Google, vgb, selfissued, markw, hhalpin, rbarnes, [Microsoft], nvdbleek (muted), +1.503.528.aaee
20:21:04 <Zakim> Google has rsleevi
20:21:04 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has israelh
20:21:15 <harry> ... implemeters come after users and authors
20:21:28 <harry> rsleevi: forward references is not quite what we want
20:21:32 <harry> ... we want to be pretty careful here
20:21:41 <harry> ... I'm not quite sure where want your concern is
20:22:16 <harry> ... for example, we can decode parameters
20:22:23 <harry> ... an algorithm id and an algorithm id object
20:22:32 <harry> ... so I don't see your concern re the extension ball
20:22:39 <harry> ... for example, step 3.7 - if you have that, everything else
20:22:45 <harry> ... in general, concerned about forward references
20:22:49 <selfissued> q+
20:22:53 <harry> ack selfissued
20:22:57 <rbarnes> i agree with everything ryan just said
20:23:07 <harry> selfissued: I'm not concerned about forward referenes
20:23:20 <harry> ... we should have parameterized hash fucntions in the future
20:23:22 <harry> markw: We had a long discussion on the list about htis
20:23:39 <harry> ... re embedding, I think its fine
20:23:42 <rsleevi> I think writing it in the spec shows how it doesn't really work
20:23:46 <rsleevi> So I think we should be flexible to change
20:23:49 <harry> ... we are already constraining extentesibility
20:23:52 <harry> q?
20:23:57 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
20:24:17 <rbarnes> q+
20:24:23 <harry> rsleevi: I'm OK with continuing discussion with TAG
20:24:32 <harry> ... so we are not really OK with this and our API design goals
20:24:45 <harry> ... with blanket exceptions to exceptions
20:24:50 <harry> markw: Which API design goals?
20:24:58 <rbarnes> q-
20:25:04 <harry> rsleevi: Annevk said it - on forward references
20:25:06 <harry> ... on the list.
20:25:15 <harry> rsleevi: best solution on the discussion on the list.
20:25:19 <harry> q+
20:25:26 <harry> ... TAG might object
20:25:32 <rbarnes> i'm pretty much in agreement with annevk.  not happy with forward references, but probably not sad enough to object.
20:25:43 <Zakim> +??P7
20:25:55 <nvdbleek> zakim, I am ??P7
20:25:55 <Zakim> +nvdbleek; got it
20:26:05 <harry> harry: Sounds like a blocking to Last Call to me
20:26:06 <harry> ... is it?
20:26:19 <harry> rsleevi: Haven't had chance to review the last edits
20:26:21 <harry> ... no firm comments
20:26:27 <Zakim> -rbarnes
20:26:27 <harry> ... this alone is enough to raise concerns about last call
20:26:36 <harry> ... the explanation is very valuable to last call
20:26:48 <selfissued> Yes, please keep going through the list
20:26:54 <harry> I basically think we should keep go through list
20:27:03 <harry> and see how far we can get consensus, and then try to move to Last Call
20:27:08 <harry> even if we can't get to it next week
20:27:23 <harry> virginie: Sounds good. Would like a definite proposal by next week?
20:27:33 <harry> ... is that feasible by rsleevi?
20:27:46 <harry> rsleevi: Assuming whole internet doesn't break like it did last week, sure.
20:27:57 <markw> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html#ecdsa
20:28:16 <harry> markw: A different kind of extensibility, extensibilty as regards EC curves
20:28:23 <harry> ... possibility to add addition EC
20:28:36 <harry> ... allow different specs to define sig, etc.
20:28:41 <harry> ... for example, in sig steps
20:28:59 <harry> ... if its one of the curves we define in our spec go with our spec, otherwise we follow those in other spec
20:29:02 <harry> ... likewise for any spec
20:29:12 <selfissued> Sounds good to me
20:29:13 <harry> ... for importkey/exportkey, back to previous issue
20:29:20 <virginie> q?
20:29:28 <virginie> ack harry
20:29:34 <Zakim> -hhalpin
20:29:52 <vgb> q+
20:34:05 <selfissued> We shouldn't be taking time now discussing hypotheticals.  When there are actual proposed language changes, we should discuss them then.
20:34:35 <markw> This is what the cloning thing says: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#other-applicable-specifications
20:34:36 <rsleevi> selfissued: This isn't a hypothetical
20:34:44 <rsleevi> The current spec is hypotheticals
20:35:01 <selfissued> It is hypothetical until there's a concrete proposed alternative language
20:35:06 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:35:06 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:36:47 <virginie> q?
20:37:03 <virginie> ack vgb
20:37:30 <harry> harry has joined #crypto
20:37:32 <rsleevi> vgb: I like the ECDSA section more, as an implementor, because it reads better
20:37:42 <rsleevi> vgb: Question for Ryan, would you be satisfied with just an appendix that listed other specifications
20:37:46 <rsleevi> vgb: Question to Mark, ???
20:38:23 <vgb> vgb: one comment and 2 questions
20:38:47 <vgb> ... comment: i like the ECDSA approach a little more than the OAEP one, it reads cleaner
20:39:31 <vgb> ... question to Ryan: If we simply had a list of "applicable specifications" in an appendix (not the text itself, just references), would this satisfy your objection?
20:40:03 <vgb> ... question to Mark: Why doesn't the consideration about parametrized hashes apply to ECDSA?
20:40:28 <virginie> I suggest we actually create an action for each of the answer expected by each of the parties here, with deadline to answer next friday
20:40:45 <selfissued> The problem with an appendix listing other specifications is that keeping that up to date requires updating the main specification every time an extension spec is created.  That's not a reasonable or scalable approach.
20:41:23 <virginie> q?
20:42:07 <rsleevi> vgb: the SPKI encoding of an EC key does not constrain the hash algorithm
20:42:21 <rsleevi> whereas the SPKI encoding of an RSA-OAEP key MAY constrain the hash algorithm
20:42:42 <rsleevi> (now, NIST specifications say you should only use hash X with curve Y, but that's not part of the core ECDSA op)
20:42:51 <rsleevi> so you could use a different hash alg with a single ECDSA key
20:42:58 <rsleevi> whereas with RSA-OAEP, SPKI/PKCS8 can prevent this
20:43:02 <virginie> scribe: rsleevi
20:43:21 <rsleevi> virginie: I'm not scribing, I'm responding
20:43:52 <wseltzer> s/scribe: rsleevi//
20:45:06 <rsleevi> Bug 35382?
20:45:15 <MichaelH> 25382
20:45:30 <wseltzer> markw: Add text to return an invalid access error
20:45:50 <wseltzer> ... skipping the less controversial ones
20:45:56 <vgb> @rsleevi: actually there is an algorithm OID for ecdsa-with-SHA1 and so on. you don't have to specify the hash in the SPKI, but you could
20:46:01 <wseltzer> .. cleaning up which error type was used
20:46:15 <wseltzer> ... a few re parameter validation
20:46:30 <Zakim> - +1.503.528.aaee
20:46:30 <wseltzer> ... In some cases, we explicitly validate params, in some cases we don't
20:46:40 <wseltzer> ... Validation error vs data or syntax error
20:47:14 <rsleevi> @vgb: Well, those keys aren't currently supported in the current draft :)
20:47:14 <wseltzer> ... Ryan has pointed out that if delegated to crypto library, don;t know why it failed
20:47:25 <wseltzer> ... So should just return operation error
20:47:41 <wseltzer> ... 25741
20:47:42 <rsleevi> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25741
20:47:45 <MichaelH> 25741
20:47:51 <virginie> example 25741
20:48:12 <vgb> @rsleevi: then why not do the same for OAEP :)
20:48:16 <rsleevi> I have no feedback to offer, as I have not reviewed any of these changes
20:48:55 <virginie> question is what do you think about that bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25741
20:49:36 <wseltzer> markw: proposal, use operation error for all param validation errors
20:50:08 <rsleevi> @vgb: I think it's more of a bug with our current SPKI import code that it chokes on the ecdsa-with-* foo OIDs. Of course, this would make the ECDSA code the same problem as the OAEP code :)
20:50:21 <markw> @rsleevi: this is not changes, this is a question of principle as to what error is returned when there are parameter validation changes
20:50:26 <markw> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25741#c3
20:50:34 <wseltzer> vgb: every time you make a call to underlying crypto library, you should expect informative error
20:50:45 <wseltzer> ... but if you want to check formatting before making the crypto call, that's bad
20:50:58 <wseltzer> markw: but there are places we do param checks before calling crypto
20:51:03 <wseltzer> ... we could rip them all out
20:51:10 <wseltzer> ... but then we'd need to check the references
20:51:23 <wseltzer> ... Or, we could say they all return operation error
20:51:32 <wseltzer> ... and leave flexibility to the implementor to delegate to crypto library
20:51:42 <israelh> q+
20:51:49 <wseltzer> vgb: sounds fine to change to operational error
20:52:11 <wseltzer> israelh: concern that not providing enough info the library is useless in diagnosis
20:52:53 <wseltzer> ... how much granularity do we want to provide?
20:53:20 <wseltzer> markw: If we specify different errors, then we're assuming crypto libraries assume that info, or requiring the UA to do the checks
20:53:43 <wseltzer> ... or you'd get different results on different platforms
20:53:55 <markw> s/assume/expose/
20:54:07 <wseltzer> israelh: On indexdb we have "unknown error," and that's not very useful
20:54:27 <wseltzer> vgb: on this list, all are "check length"
20:55:10 <wseltzer> ... would we be forcing them to add extra length-checking?
20:55:24 <wseltzer> markw: Please look at these bugs on error reporting
20:55:57 <wseltzer> virginie: could you please start a mailing list discussion, Mark?
20:56:00 <wseltzer> markw: sure
20:56:08 <wseltzer> virginie: anything else you want to highlight?
20:56:29 <wseltzer> markw: Look at the recent changes tab, the changes I made last week
20:56:38 <wseltzer> ... most of those are straightforward
20:56:50 <wseltzer> ... Think we've resolved in principle security considerations;
20:56:55 <wseltzer> ... we discussed extensibility here
20:57:07 <wseltzer> ... make keys non-extractable by default (25721)
20:57:34 <wseltzer> virginie: We have been suggesting to WG that we'd try to exit LC today
20:57:44 <wseltzer> ... we'd like to get there
20:58:06 <wseltzer> ... Please make sure your orgs have enough bandwidth to review remaining bugs
20:58:16 <wseltzer> ... Do you have time this week?
20:58:55 <wseltzer> vgb: I've been working to spin up again
20:59:45 <wseltzer> rsleevi: I said I'd look through Mark's 39 changes and provide feedback by Friday
20:59:59 <wseltzer> virginie: Deadline for text proposals to change is Friday
21:00:15 <wseltzer> ... Propose another call 13 October, 2000 UTC
21:00:20 <virginie> 13th of oct would be the call for trying to exit last call
21:01:14 <wseltzer> ... fallback, 20 October
21:01:15 <virginie> unless opposition to the date on the coming 2 days
21:02:03 <wseltzer> Virginie: F2F at TPAC, 30 October
21:02:17 <wseltzer> ... please register, http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/
21:02:59 <wseltzer> ... more discussion on the list
21:03:00 <Zakim> -Matt_Wood
21:03:01 <selfissued> bye
21:03:02 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:03:03 <Zakim> -virginie
21:03:05 <Zakim> -vgb
21:03:06 <Zakim> -Google
21:03:07 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:03:10 <Zakim> -markw
21:03:12 <MichaelH> MichaelH has left #crypto
21:03:13 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
21:03:16 <Zakim> -selfissued
21:03:21 <Zakim> -nvdbleek
21:03:54 <Zakim> -Michael_Hutchinson
21:03:55 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has ended
21:03:55 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.503.712.aaaa, +1.512.257.aabb, virginie, Michael_Hutchinson, Wendy, Matt_Wood, +1.650.275.aacc, rsleevi, vgb, selfissued, markw, hhalpin, +1.434.941.aadd,
21:03:55 <Zakim> ... rbarnes, nvdbleek, israelh, +1.503.528.aaee
21:04:05 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:04:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
21:04:06 <rsleevi> rsleevi has left #crypto
21:04:22 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make logs public
21:04:24 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:04:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
21:05:02 <wseltzer> i/invalid access error/scribenick: wseltzer
21:05:07 <wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf
21:05:07 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:05:07 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
21:05:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:05:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
21:05:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:05:16 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
21:05:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
21:05:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-irc
21:06:02 <wseltzer> i/scribe: hhalpin/scribenick: harry/
21:06:05 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:06:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
21:52:35 <tantek> tantek has joined #crypto
23:34:08 <harry> harry has joined #crypto