XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG

 

<fjh2> Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance WG Conference Call

<fjh2> ScribeNick: EdS

<fjh2> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0078.html

Administrivia: scribe confirmation, next meeting, other

No meeting on July 3, Hal Scribing July 10

Please solicit position papers for meeting at VeriSign headquarters and indicate availability.

XML Core OK with us updating XML Signature note.

Resolution: Minutes of last week are approved.

Action-26: Open

<tlr> I have just updated the interop participation questionnaire to close on 30 June.

Action-25 on Rich Salz is still open;

fjh will contact Rich on action-25

action-37: closed

action-38: Closed

jcc: Action-48 should be closed re minutes of last meeting, no change to doc was necessary

Action-48: Closed

<fjh2> action-50 open

<tlr> ACTION-50 open, ACTION-54 closed, ACTION-55 closed

Actions 54 and 55 are closed.

Interop planning

fjh: should interop be open or closed?

<klanz2> +1 to open

fjh: is additional interop from outside wanted?

<sean> +1

EdS: +1

<deastlak> I think it should be open...

Rob Miller says +1

Rob Miller attempting to get others involved.

tlr +1

tlr: we should invite XML Core as co-sponsors for interop

<tlr> RESOLUTION: interop to be open, invite XML Core to co-sponsor

Resolution: Interop will be open and we will attemp to co-sponsor with XML Core

fjh: Phb2 confirms VeriSign will host

tlr: 10-15 people expected.

<klanz2> ;-)

phb2: room confirmed for 20 people

fjh: we need test cases for interop
... please respond to questionaire

tlr: we need to collect old test cases, create new test cases
... need action item for test cases

we need a point person for test cases for the WG

<tlr> fine with me as well

fjh: use wiki for test cases?

<tlr> +1 to using wiki; hadn't thought of it

klanz2: +1 to wiki, also CVS a good idea, will contribute test cases

fjh: we should use CVS for test cases and wiki

<tlr> ACTION: thomas to give Juan Carlos, Sean, Konrad access to interop web space in CVS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-56 - Give Juan Carlos, Sean, Konrad access to interop web space in CVS [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-07-03].

<tlr> ACTION: cruellas to get us started on test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-57 - Get us started on test cases [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-07-03].

fjh: juan create outline of test cases and indicate links to previous test cases

klanz2: will supply unit cases
... will post cases to list

fjh, klanz2, EdS: put "[InterOp-Testcase]" in subject line for posts related to test cases

action garbage collection

<tlr> ACTION-52 done

Action-52: Closed

<fjh2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-X509Data

XML Signature Draft

<fjh2> should" to "MAY" at end of 4.4.4

<fjh2> reference to RFC2253 updated to RFC4515

<fjh2> conversion of last bullet to additional text, since not augmentation of encoding rules

<fjh2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0071.html

<fjh2> s/the string encoding rules in section 2.4/the character escaping rules in section 2.4/

konrad: dname encoding is clarified as optional
... should say "Character-escaping" rules

jcc: rfc4514 not restricted just to ASCII, talks of Unicode

<jcc> one of the characters '"', '+', ',', ';', '<', '>', or '\'

<jcc> (U+0022, U+002B, U+002C, U+003B, U+003C, U+003E, or U+005C,

<jcc> respectively);

jcc: 2.4 of rfc 4514

<Zakim> tlr, you wanted to note that 2253 isn't limited to ASCII either

rfc 2253 talks about UTF-8

rfc 4514 deals with Unicode

<fjh2> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4514.txt

tlr: need to be compatible with various XML encodings, Konrad's additions make that work

<fjh2> tlr: if receiver can process according to RFC then sender has some encoding flexibility

<tlr> tlr: RFC 4514, section 2.4 gives you two ways to encode things. hex (which you pick if you don't know how to deal with charset) or utf-8 + escaping rules. Receiving party needs to be able to deal with both. Therefore, propose that we just stick to the current text, plus Konrad's proposed change.

jcc: to send email explaining his thoughts on RFC 2253 and 4514 diffs

tlr: string generated must comply with sec 3 of rfc 4514

klanz2: an rfc 2253 implemenation should be happy with what we have now

<tlr> we are talking of not even a conformance point.

<fjh2> Consider the string as consisting of Unicode characters.

jcc: most recent red-line is OK with him with Konrad's edit but first bullet (Unicode one) is of concern

<Zakim> tlr, you wanted to suggest striking that bullet point

tlr: agree with JCC re string "consisting of Unicode characters"

<tlr> tlr: suggest to strike it

<fjh2> klanz2: if talking character escaping then clearer that not hex encoding

jcc and konrad agree with tlr

<fjh2> re removing first bullet

sean: wary of going with 4514 in addition to 2253

back to getting rid of Unicode bullet

<klanz2> +1 to skip first bullet

agreed to get rid of that bullet

back to sean's comment

<fjh2> RESOLUTION: Remove first bullet in second bullet list in XML Sig 4.4.4

tlr: grammar in 2253 is broken, 4514 is fixed

sean: what of implemenations already out there

EdS: are we worried about legacy implementations?

tlr: are implementations of 2253 going to be broken by 4514

sean: hard to answer that

EdS: if it can be broken, it will ;)

tlr: going with 4514 and let interop flush out problems

klanz2: asks tlr to summarize his comments on the mailing list to record his detailed thinking about 4514

<scribe> ACTION: Sean to create test re rfc 2253 vs rfc 4514 implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-58 - Create test re rfc 2253 vs rfc 4514 implementations [on Sean Mullan - due 2007-07-03].

<fjh2> 2253 implementation able to receive

<tlr> I think if Sean finds a "trouble" test case, that needs to go into the interop testing.

<klanz2> May I propose to add 15 minutes to the call ?

<tlr> +1 to adding 15 min

<fjh2> eds: uniform referencing of RFC 2253 and 4514 in draft? Earlier section?

<sean> +1 to adding 15 min

<fjh2> +1 to 15 min

<scribe> ACTION: thomas to summarize his comments on the mailing list to record his detailed thinking about 4514 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-xmlsec-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-59 - Summarize his comments on the mailing list to record his detailed thinking about 4514 [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-07-03].

tlr: all decisions are subject to interop testing results

resolution: wg agrees to change to rfc 4514 from rfc 2253 subject to interop testing

<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-X509Data

<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-X509Data

<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-LDAP-DN

<klanz2> Update the Reference Section as well

tlr: review wording changes to XML Sig

sean: in section 11, need to update ref to 2253 to 4514

tlr: that was done

<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-References

<klanz2> It's there, there is a limit due to the speed of Light ;-)

<klanz2> we have two more minutes

everyone to review new version of specification -- make sure you have the latest version! -- and add your comments to the list and be prepared to approve, or debate, XML Sig at next meeting

fjh: reversibility warning can be in best practices,

<fjh2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0000.html

to make sure you have latest draft, go to top and look for "Editor's Draft $Date: 2007/07/01 20:53:25 $" or later time stamp

<tlr> sorry, no

<tlr> XML-Signature Syntax and Processing Editor's Draft $Date: 2007/07/01 20:53:25 $

<tlr> ,-)

jcc: mime types not an open issue

<klanz2> do you have a link to the errata document

<tlr> +1 to fjh's proposal

<tlr> ACTION: cruellas to investigate mime types vs uri for next meeting -due 2007-07-10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/26-xmlsec-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-60 - Investigate mime types vs uri for next meeting -due 2007-07-10 [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-07-03].

<klanz2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0078.html

fjh: prefer to leave stuff on agenda to next time if we do not get it to it this time
... will need to review canonicalization revision from Konrad

klanz2: there are some issues; more feedback potentially when interop starts, c14n wants to be informed of xmlsec wg status

<tlr> juan-carlos, I think the Type vs MIMEType issue isn't one.

fjh: will we need more time on these calls? as we move to interop, may not, or maybe we will

<klanz2> 7a) changes to appendix, considered changes by JCC, did not consider changes by sean as I sticked as close as possible to RFC 3986 ...

next call on July 10

<klanz2> ... maybe rewording may enhance readability

<klanz2> ... unsure about the implications and impacts wehn rewording appendix moving away from rfc 3986

<klanz2> ... as original mission in xml core was to stick as close as posssible to the rfc 3986 ...

<klanz2> .. discussion useful .