See also: IRC log
Rob to scribe
<hhalpin> RRSAgent
Testing Status: hhalpin
Various expressions of interest on implementing tests. conflict of time for the meeting.
Attempting to schedule a training for implementing tests.
Ryan Hurst moving to Google, no longer able to contribute testings
Jim: has submitted a pull request for tests. Interested in contrubuting.
March 14th 8:00am PST training.
Do not forget daylight savings time on March 13th
After training, we can then create a plan for dividing up the work.
<scribe> ACTION: send an invitation to training. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/07-crypto-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/users>.
<hhalpin> ACTION: hhalpin to send out invite for testing, try 8:00 AM March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/07-crypto-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Send out invite for testing, try 8:00 am march [on Harry Halpin - due 2016-03-14].
Ask: share implementation roadmaps
Firefox: implemented all algorithsms that they plan to support
Missing pieces, PCKS8 support for ecdsa
<hhalpin> CONCAT? Which algorithms do you not plan to implement?
<jimsch> CONCAT has been removed from the current spec
<ttaubert> CONCAT, AES-CMAC, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5, AES-CFB
<hhalpin> and PKCS8 support for ECDH
<ttaubert> (EC)DH
On workers, Planning on implementing, there are still some places where spec is not clear.
Bi-weekly is OK for Mozilla.
<hhalpin> +1 Jim's suggestion to use IETF HKDF
<jimsch> Which IETF or the NIST version of HKDF.
<hhalpin> We need to fix the reference in the spec to match the IETF spec
<jimsch> I can create a pull request for this
<hhalpin> I think Jim already opened this bug
HKDF implemented to IETF specification
<hhalpin> but a pull request on spec is good
<jimsch> THis is bug 27425
<ttaubert> can I contribute to the spec by creating PRs and markw merging them?
Microsoft: question on current specification standardization and algorithm support.
<virginie> harry : suggest that we remove the algorithms from the spec to park them in a Note, in case it is implemented later
The process for WebCrypto would be to move algorithms that do not have 2 implementations will be moved to optional.
Looking to get a snapshot of document that does not change. then enter a edited candidate phase for changing spec.
requirement is to mark what is inter-operable and what is not. Do not want to lose text, just make a declaration about what needs to work.
Microsoft; we do not have a roadmap out past 12 months. it is open what will be implemetned in the long term.
Come back in 2 weeks to discuss what is not implemented and may be moved to optional.
There is pressure to deliver something. Asked for 6 month extension, but need to deliver final spec to ecosystem
Need a tool to replace bugzilla for tracking interoperability / spec bugs.
<virginie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2016Mar/0005.html
<hhalpin> +1 jim again
<hhalpin> Have MarkW look through, then migrate remaining open bugs to github issues
Does Mark have time to work on the management of bugs issues? Answer: yes
Questions on Rec process have been answered in previous discussion.
<jimsch> MarkW? When do you think you will have a chance to look at the current set of spec pull requests?
Next call is in 2 weeks. Will look for update on implementation and recommendations for dropping features.
<hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting
<hhalpin> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 07 March 2016
<hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting