<wseltzer> 16:06 < harry> chair: virginie

<wseltzer> 16:06 < harry> scribe: hhalpin

<wseltzer> 16:06 < harry> topic: Status of API

<wseltzer> 16:06 < harry> markw: As far as the spec is concerned

<wseltzer> 16:06 < harry> ... there are 8 open issues

<wseltzer> 16:07 < harry> ... five of them have proposed resolutions

<wseltzer> 16:07 < harry> ... just need a review

<wseltzer> 16:07 < harry> ... there are 3 issues

<wseltzer> 16:07 < harry> ... can anyone step up and review those pull requests?

<wseltzer> 16:07 < harry> ... then I can merge them.

<wseltzer> 16:08 < harry> virginie: so we need those closed

markw: the open pull requests are minor

<wseltzer> +1

markw: we could take a decision in principle in this meeting so that the CfC could go out once these issues are closed

virginie: do the implementers on the call want to go over the five pull requests?

<wseltzer> present= rrware, markw, hhalpin, virginie, JoAnne, RobTrace, wseltzer

virginie: would be good to go over them

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20-milestone%3AVNext%20label%3A%22needs%20review%22

markw: the five open issue
... GlobalCrypto IDL is not valid needs review
... Boris suggested WindowOrWorker global scope

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/pull/153

markw: so the pull request just adds that to GlobalCrypto object.

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/issues/146

rware: Sounds reasonable to me.
... 146 fixes two issues

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/pull/148/files

rware: spec has been silent on where to get elliptic curve data
... you could argue that was obvious
... support of compressed format
... any comments or questions

hhalpin: Sounds like that's complex enough to need a real review

<scribe> ACTION: rware reviews but 146 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-crypto-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'rware'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/users>.

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/issues/144

rware: I'll review 146

<rrware> harry: Thanks.

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/pull/149/files

markw: The changes have been made over the last few month, but just add Promises to WebIDL

(seems quite straightforward)

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/issues/85

markw: As far as provided, there are some possible different behaviors
... re SPKI/PKCS8 - test-case works via iframe and seemed to worked different
... objects should be associated with this where this is the relevant object which calls

<markw> https://github.com/w3c/webcrypto/pull/135

markw: WebCrypto, I've done the update in IDL and added some text

I think they should also have review

as its not precisely trivial and revealed previous differing browser behavior

<markw> https://github.com/mwatson2/webcrypto/commit/16164bcbe607aac948245c8200c39eb8383c6089

markw: There's a commit for this
... we did a CfC for this on mailing list

+1 re Markw's text

markw: I added the relevant text re strict production but liberal and differing import

"ext" in JWK

should be registered next week

CFRG review still needed for new version

virginie: Re test coverage
... my recollection was there full coverage

non-extractable

re the import of non-extractable

does unwrapping of non-extractable key works?

markw: I did that test this morning
... existing test does on round-trip
... which you can't wrap an unextractable keys
... so we have to implement it in JS ourselves
... and set the ext to false manually in JS
... and then we unwrapped using WebCrypto
... testing the functionality
... so we need a new way to see if new key can be the same, i.e see if its usages still work for the non-extractable keys
... I did this for some AES
... and it seemed to exercise the basic functionality
... worked on Chrome and Firefox

+1

markw: thinking of implementing AES-KW
... Do we have table showing support?

hhalpin: Not yet, I have to redo before we do PR call

virginie: It looks test coverage is OK, implementation is OK.
... we need a CfC for PR

You can do either, i.e. you can make a formal decision and there will be some minor editorial work and double-checking of the test-suite

Or wait until absolutely no edits are done and the test-suite is definitely confirmed.

wseltzer: We could make that provisional decision now
... and then make sure that the mailing list is given the CfC
... and then re-confirmed when all final edits is done.

<virginie> resolution : the WG agrees to move to proposed recommendation (provided that the 2 weeks cfc does not receive objection)

<wseltzer> PROPOSED: WG agrees to move to Proposed Recommendation, provided that the editorial bugs are resolved, pending 2 week review on mailing list

<wseltzer> PROPOSED: WG agrees to move to Proposed Recommendation, provided that the editorial bugs are resolved, pending 2 week review on mailing list that starts after this call

+1

I guess the main thing is that the PRs should be checked in to make sure document is stable before CfCs are done

but people can also look at PRs and see if they like them or not.

(its just cognitively more complex)

<virginie> +1

<rrware> +1

<markw> +1

+0 (I would prefer we have the document 100% stable and PRs resolved, but I can live with just hitting the PR request button now)

<Robtrace> +0

RESOLUTION: WG agrees to move to Proposed Recommendation, provided that the editorial bugs are resolved, pending 2 week review on mailing list that starts after this call

virginie: I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this API, especially Mark
... AOB?
... let's close the call!
... we can do another call in 2 weeks if needed, and then likely a call for Director in about a month
... thank you very much everyone for your contributions

trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: harry
Inferring Scribes: harry

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: rrware, markw, hhalpin, virginie, JoAnne, RobTrace, wseltzer
Present: rrware markw hhalpin virginie JoAnne RobTrace wseltzer

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 10 Oct 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/10-crypto-minutes.html
People with action items: rware

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report