19:32:47 RRSAgent has joined #crypto 19:32:47 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/22-crypto-irc 19:32:49 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:32:51 Zakim, this will be CRYPT 19:32:51 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 19:32:52 Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference 19:32:52 Date: 22 February 2016 19:33:16 zakim, code? 19:33:16 no conference has been identified yet, wseltzer 19:33:41 zakim, this is +1-617-324-0000 Access Code: 643 244 026 WebEx 19:33:41 got it, wseltzer 19:42:03 jimsch has joined #crypto 19:46:39 hhalpin has joined #crypto 19:46:51 Zakim, this is crypto 19:46:51 got it, hhalpin 19:46:58 Zakim, code? 19:46:58 I have been told this is crypto 19:47:05 zakim, this is +1-617-324-0000 Access Code: 643 244 026 WebEx 19:47:05 got it, wseltzer 19:47:20 thanks, that's what I was about to do. 19:51:49 virginie has joined #crypto 19:53:50 lets try to join the telco now 19:53:58 I just sent Wendy the host key as well, I'll send it to you Virginie 19:56:54 agenda? 19:57:02 present+ wseltzer 19:57:12 present+ virginie 19:57:13 zakim, clear agendda 19:57:13 I don't understand 'clear agendda', wseltzer 19:57:15 zakim, clear agenda 19:57:15 agenda cleared 19:57:16 Zakim, clear agenda 19:57:17 agenda cleared 19:58:06 jimsch has joined #crypto 19:58:11 agenda+ welcome and introduction 19:58:39 agenda+ State of browser implementations, gap with Web Crypto API 19:58:55 agenda+ Charter renewal / extension 19:59:08 agenda+ Possible timeline the group can reach on the rec track 19:59:13 present+ hhalpin 19:59:16 present+ virginie 19:59:20 present+ jimsch 19:59:24 agenda+ Test suite status 19:59:29 agenda? 19:59:35 present+ jyates 20:03:00 present+ charles_engelke 20:03:17 zakim, who is here? 20:03:17 Present: wseltzer, virginie, hhalpin, jyates, Charles_Engelke, jimsch, timeless, kodonog 20:03:20 On IRC I see jimsch, virginie, hhalpin, RRSAgent, mountie, wseltzer, Yates, Karen, tobie, slightlyoff, trackbot, timeless, Zakim 20:03:33 present- kodonog, timeless 20:03:36 zakim, who is here? 20:03:36 Present: wseltzer, virginie, hhalpin, jyates, Charles_Engelke, jimsch 20:03:37 On IRC I see jimsch, virginie, hhalpin, RRSAgent, mountie, wseltzer, Yates, Karen, tobie, slightlyoff, trackbot, timeless, Zakim 20:07:26 regrets+ tim_taubert 20:08:13 Happy to scribe 20:08:18 virginie: anyone from Microsoft here? 20:08:20 chair: Virginie 20:08:25 scribe: hhalpin 20:09:12 present+ markw 20:09:25 zakim, who is here? 20:09:25 Present: wseltzer, virginie, hhalpin, jyates, Charles_Engelke, jimsch, markw 20:09:27 On IRC I see jimsch, virginie, hhalpin, RRSAgent, mountie, wseltzer, Yates, Karen, tobie, slightlyoff, trackbot, timeless, Zakim 20:09:35 markw has joined #crypto 20:09:45 agenda? 20:10:01 Virginie: Tim from Mozilla and Microsoft said they were going to join but didn't make it. 20:10:11 ... so let's continue this on the mailing list 20:10:32 ... we want to go through charter and timeline 20:10:42 ... hard to address if state of browser implementation 20:10:45 ... test-suite status 20:10:51 ... let's focus on that. 20:11:26 q+ 20:12:17 hhalpin: We should push the spec to CR and reflect how it's currently implemented, so let's focus on 2-4 regardless of lack of support from browser vendors 20:12:38 wseltzer: It's an important spec for developers, let's tie up loose ends and make sure we can get interop needs 20:12:52 virginie: it's the minimum we can have 20:13:13 ... the voice of the browser implementers is very important 20:14:14 hhalpin: we have to assume no new features, current state of implementation is what goes to Recommendation 20:14:22 ... so we'll need to remove some algorithms 20:14:36 ... and make sure we have tests for what's implemented 20:14:43 markw: test suite is key 20:14:52 +1 to test implementations by tests 20:14:53 markw: If we have a detailed test-suite then we can have a clear record of what is miss or missing not. 20:15:17 ... maybe there's resistance to a few things, but we can probably get a few tweaks 20:15:44 hhalpin: I can review the three edits we need to go to CR 20:16:07 ... procedural, let's move our work to github 20:16:15 +1 to github 20:16:17 markw: github will be much better 20:16:19 +1 github 20:16:30 PROPOSAL: Move everything to github, shut-down redirect and the W3C mercurial repo 20:16:36 +1 20:16:49 RESOLVED: Move everything to github, shut-down redirect and the W3C mercurial repo 20:17:09 hhalpin: then we have to show we've resolved all objections 20:17:25 ... 1st was Akamai's request for pointer to security guidance 20:17:38 ... I suggest we add a pointer to CFRG document 20:17:46 ... 2d was non-NIST curve 20:17:52 ... CFRG hasn't yet fully resolved 20:17:57 +q 20:18:05 ... not enough detail for us to implement 20:18:06 q- 20:18:21 ... so I suggest we respond to CFRG 20:18:33 jimsch: what do you believe isn't covered in terms of format? 20:18:45 hhalpin: last I saw, there was still debate on parameters 20:18:46 Note : security guidelines from CFRG https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-webcrypto-algorithms/ 20:18:50 ... on curve 25519 20:19:05 jimsch: wire transfer format is open in terms of what the points look like 20:19:12 ... but it's now a published RFC 20:19:24 ... Adam Langley's draft is finished 20:19:34 ... Edwards signature is still open 20:19:49 hhalpin: I believe Mozilla is implementing 20:19:50 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg07288.html 20:20:04 ... haven't yet decided to expose to WebCrypto 20:20:35 jimsch: they'll have to implement DH for TLS, not necessarily signature 20:21:03 hhalpin: unless we have 2 implementations, the most we can do now is a note 20:21:28 jimsch: until we get a wire format for keys, we can't import or export 20:21:46 ... neither JOSE nor PKICS is specified yet 20:21:51 ... so punt for now 20:21:56 Topic: Test Suite 20:22:16 hhalpin: minimum bar, or higher 20:22:54 ... proving that algorithms, WebIDL have been implemented in more than 1 browser 20:23:10 ... using Charles's tests, we showed this was partially true 20:23:34 http://testthewebforward.org/ 20:23:34 https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/WebCryptoAPI 20:23:45 hhalpin: or should we do more? 20:23:51 https://github.com/diafygi/webcrypto-examples/ 20:23:58 ... if anyone is available to help 20:24:39 markw: the challenge with webcrypto is that there are so many idividual pieces to test 20:24:41 webidlharness.js 20:24:55 ... we have some tests in jasmine, not portable 20:25:04 s/idividual/individual/ 20:25:18 charles: has anyone written a shim for jasmine to webplatform test framework? 20:25:24 hhalpin: I can ask 20:25:44 markw: then we can put in the Netflix tests 20:26:30 hhalpin: I'll ask Tobie if he knows of a Jasmine->webplatform test framework 20:26:47 charles: I'd love to help, but I'm slammed at the moment 20:27:16 hhalpin: some outside people have shown interest 20:27:56 ... I'd be happy to do test suite training on off weeks between our biweekly wg calls 20:28:21 ... if we can't get WPT, jasmine tests meet minimum bar 20:28:49 markw: I didn't find lots of interest 20:29:00 ... but I could help if Harry is leading a test effort 20:29:20 ... if you're willing to lead, then we can help fill in missing tests 20:29:31 hhalpin: I'll do a training next week at this time 20:29:42 ... pick a few algorithms, make some tests 20:30:05 ... we'll test that IDL is implemented 20:30:13 ... not testing every step in every algorithm 20:31:08 hhalpin: we can't test service workers, key format interop 20:31:20 ... because we've gotten advice we won't get implemenation 20:31:32 ... we can submit bug reports on the implementations 20:31:46 ... but if we don't get bug fixes, we should take pieces out of the spec 20:32:22 virginie: that sounds like the right way forward 20:32:27 markw: we're not using key formats 20:32:42 ... can we get enough test cases to show the boundary between what works and what doesn't? 20:33:05 q+ 20:33:23 q- 20:33:26 hhalpin: so long as the guidance is clear, on what's usable, what's not 20:34:12 PROPOSAL: Do a test-creating session on the off-days from telecon, next week Monday - see who shows up? 20:35:05 If no one shows up, we already have test of presence of algorithms and we'll just go with that. 20:35:09 Which is already there. 20:35:34 virginie: we need to keep talking as well with browser implementors about status 20:35:49 action: virginie to talk with Microsoft and Mozilla 20:35:51 Created ACTION-155 - Talk with microsoft and mozilla [on Virginie GALINDO - due 2016-02-29]. 20:36:59 hhalpin: it would be great if you share summary of current state 20:37:14 q+ 20:38:02 q+ 20:38:03 q- 20:38:17 virginie: one month for feedback, whether to go for extensive or more minimal tests 20:38:22 ... and editorial changes 20:38:28 wseltzer: let's make some concrete dates 20:38:28 ... to match 20:38:44 ... two big tasks: spec editing, and tests 20:39:13 ... if we were going for extensive tests, and you therefore had to remove features 20:39:21 ... can you do that in a mnht, markw? 20:39:30 markw: yes, for editing, a month would be fine 20:39:34 s/mnht/month/ 20:39:45 ... so a month deadline sounds fine 20:39:54 virginie: follow-up call in 2 weeks 20:39:59 ... bringing info back to WG 20:40:37 ... bi-weekly calls for WG; tests on the alternate weeks 20:41:05 ... so we'll need to work on mailing list as well 20:41:38 ... what's our choice for charter renewal? 20:43:25 q+ 20:45:39 wseltzer: we have an important, mostly implemented spec 20:45:56 ... since we also know it needs some cleanup, I'd like to see it move forward to Rec 20:46:17 ... I think we should give it 6 months for the procedural steps 20:46:36 hhalpin: we know mostly what's required to be removed 20:47:20 ... since CR->PR and PR->Rec are both process steps, even a 6mo extension gives only 4 months of work 20:47:36 ... so if we have no movement by the end of March, we should go directly to edits on the spec 20:47:50 PROPOSED: extend the WG for 6 months 20:48:28 +1 on 6 months 20:49:03 virgine: extension means no change to scope, continue to move forward 20:49:06 ... any objections? 20:49:23 agenda? 20:49:24 RESOLVED: extend the WG for 6 months 20:49:44 virginie: so we'll ask for a 6mo extension 20:49:58 ... Harry will meet next week regarding test suites 20:50:06 ... any other business? 20:50:22 ... thank you to those who participated! 20:50:34 ... next WG meeting March 7 20:50:53 ... Please come then, and for test discussion on 29 February, 2000 UTC 20:51:03 hhalpin: I'll send an email on TTWF process 20:51:25 [adjourned] 20:51:35 rrsagent, make minutes 20:51:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/22-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer 20:51:39 rrsagent, make minutes public 20:51:39 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', wseltzer. Try /msg RRSAgent help 20:51:45 rrsagent, make logs public 20:52:32 thanks everyone! 21:13:49 jimsch has joined #crypto 21:15:13 virginie has joined #crypto 21:30:19 mountie has joined #crypto 22:06:00 i/hhalpin: we have/scribenick: wseltzer 22:06:05 rrsagent, make minutes 22:06:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/22-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer 23:09:05 mountie has joined #crypto