[1]W3C [2]XML Encryption WG

      [1] http://www.w3.org/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Overview.html

  2001-October-1
  Chair: Joseph Reagle
  Note Taker: Joseph Reagle [3]text]

      [3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/011001-tele.html,text

Participants

     * Joseph Reagle, W3C
     * Blair Dillaway, Microsoft
     * Donald Eastlake 3rd, Motorola
     * Ed Simon, XMLsec
     * Merlin Hughes, Baltimore

News

Status of documents

     * Will do formal last call on the week of October 15th.

Reviewing [4]Previous Items

      [4] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/010917-tele.html

    1. Eastlake: add real life examples in section 5.5 to illustrate.
       Pending: Due by the 12th.
    2. Action Hughes: ([5] XML Encryption Processing Model) Will
       investigate and send an email on Xerces implementation using
       XNI, or DOM when processing Element or Element Content.
       Pending.
    3. Action Reagle: [6]Add text on the creation of nonce and
       integrity in the processing rules.
       Will complete when last issue is resolved.
    4. Action Reagle: Update charter.

      [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Aug/0031.html
      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Sep/0002.html

Requirements

   ...

Draft

     * [7]Scenario for Plaintext Integrity
       Reagle: What do we want to do? On the list Merlin and Ed said
       they preferred option 1: remove Digest{Method,Value}.
       Reagle: Is this because people don't find the requirement for
       this functionality that compelling, or they do and they think
       option 1 is the best way.
       Dillaway: I prefer option 1.. I don't think many folks will have
       the requirement for partial revelation, if they do, they can
       specify it, and it could be an informational document. It's not
       something every toolkit should have to implement.
       Eastlake: Option 1: there's no requirement that xmldsig can't
       meet. The sign/encrypt and being able to change keys is tricky,
       but that's a fairly unique requirement.
       Simon: unconvinced of the requirement.
       Merlin: seems like a special case, haven't found that immediate
       need amongst his users.
       Action Reagle: Remove Digest{Method,Value}.
       Reagle: To confirm, with respect to Schaad's proposal for a
       checksum of the plaintext that is encrypted as part of the
       CipherValue, if people want to do this, they can create a new
       algorithm.
       Call: Agree.
     * [8]Serialization Hint
       Reagle: from Simon's email, "does it make sense to allow the
       application to provide a hint in <EncryptedData> how the the
       serialization was done?"
       Simon/Dillaway: Last word was agreement to [9]Reagle's two
       sentence of text.
       Simon: Don't need new syntax for a hint yet, will think about
       that more.
     * Plan
       Blair Dillaway: what's the expectation for going to last call?
       Reagle: I think I can reflect all the changes I need to do
       today, but then I will be on Holiday from Oct 4-11. So if Don
       can send his examples on section 5 to the list while I'm gone,
       when I get back I can integrate them in and do the formal last
       call (week of 15th-19th)

      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Sep/0021.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Sep/0038.html
      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Sep/0046.html

Misc.

     * Next call on October 15, 2001.