See also: IRC log
<rdmiller> I will not be able to attend the call today. Sorry for the late notice.
<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0066.html
<fjh> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0066.html
<tlr> ScribeNick: tlr
RESOLUTION: last week's minutes approved, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Aug/0016.html
jcc: test cases for scheme-based xpointers
??
... section 3.5 ...
<fjh> looking at this mail - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jul/0054.html
jcc: document contains comments ...
... test case described about using xpointers and barenames ...
... thought this action was completed ...
<scribe> ScribeNick: brich
<klanz2> JC are you talking about this: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html#TestCases-SchemaBasedXPointers
<tlr> thanks klanz for the pointer, I was looking for that
<jcc> The signature will be an enveloping signature. The enveloped document will be the one shown at the begininning of this section. The value of the URI attribute will be "xpointer(id("e1ID"))"
<tlr> +1 to closing this action
<tlr> brich, you don't need to use the IRC nick name, something that matches the person should work.
<trackbot-ng> Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
action 68 close
ACTION 68 closed
ACTION-71 open
ACTION-68 closed
<trackbot-ng> Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
<fjh> action 68 closed
<fjh> action 75 done, 3.6.1
<jcc> 3.6.1 Test cases on differences identified in RFC 2253 and RFC 4514
<scribe> ACTION: 68 close [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - 68
<tlr> brich, if you start with "ACTION: ", you create a new action item, which in this case was on 68 to close :)
<fjh> action 74 open
<klanz2> 82, 83 keep open ...
ACTION 75 closed
<klanz2> 82, 83 keep open ...
ACTION 84 closed
<fjh> action 84 was for minuts of 21 AUG
<klanz2> can you excuse me for 3 minutes, I'll be right back
ACTION 85 closed
ACTION 86 closed
<klanz2> back
invitations sent, not much in the way of responses yet
<tlr> nothing else to add...
<klanz2> I like the term freefall ;-)
interop format question
looking for some structure, but relatively free-form so far
<fjh> will want to produce interop test matrix summarizing results, also summarize issues
simple testcases for c14n11 being selected (possibly to go to xml core)
<fjh> +1 to separate c14n11 alone cases
so some for just c14n11, some for dsig
<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html
<fjh> klanz2: created stand alone test case directories, also updated test cases document accordingly
<tlr> I'd suggest the public list for technical discussion.
<fjh> +1 to public list
<fjh> c14n11 cases http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html#TestCases-Can-XMLAttributes
<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html#XMLLANG
<fjh> ... links in table lead to source documents
<fjh> ... tests in 3.2 can also be done in 3.3 in context of signature as well
klanz2: will continue to update document listed in link above
<fjh> sean: generated sigs for xml:lang, xml:id and xml:space
<sean> zakim. mute me
klanz2: suggest report to core will just be c14n11, not dsig
tlr: original issues were raised in context of dsig, not c14n alone
<fjh> tlr: dealing with partial document c14N11 seems to be use case within dsig context
<tlr> I'm not feeling strongly either way.
<tlr> I won't keep anybody from doing more test cases :)
<fjh> jcc: in favor of keeping stand alone c14n11 test cases
<fjh> ... useful to have independent test cases, easier to detect issues
<fjh> klanz2: dom uses c14n
<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to ask whether we're sure everybody has the necessary APIs to test the standalone document subset cases
<sean> I don't think it should be a requirement to pass standalone c14n cases
<fjh> +1 to standalone c14n11 use cases, if feasible and practical to do
<fjh> sean: ok for standalone cases, but should not be required test matrix case
<fjh> brich: +1 to sean, useful to have, e.g. for debugging, but not a requirement
tlr: what will the output from the interop look like, want matchup in functions tested
klanz2: separation of testcases allows reporting of subset c14n to interested parties
tlr: +1 to have two ways to test, one for c14n and one in a dsig env.
<fjh> klanz2: single table entry that has both c14n11 standalone and sig with same input
<tlr> "do it" also meaning to have the linked test cases
<tlr> ACTION: klanz2 to document approach to subset expressions in a README file along with the test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-87 - Document approach to subset expressions in a README file along with the test cases [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-09-11].
frederick: question about value of negative testcases
<sean> +1 to negative test cases
<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html#TestCases.xmldsig_c14n11
<fjh> klanz: what about implementation that always returns true for all sigs
<fjh> hal: but produce sig value...
<fjh> tlr: do we need test case to discern c14n10 and c14n11 implementations, not negative case per se
<tlr> the hashing / looking at output documents obviates need for negative test cases.
<tlr> We just don't want to have a test suite that yes(1) can pass
<fjh> note - issue for discern c14n10 and c14n11
<klanz2> ;-)
<fjh> ACTION: jcc to remove negative test cases from test case document, save in repository in new document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-88 - Remove negative test cases from test case document, save in repository in new document [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-09-11].
<klanz2> What about existing, test cases? Merlin an so on ...
<klanz2> @brich: http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/c14n11/
<klanz2> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmldsig/c14n11/
sean: do we send out reminder about interop?
fjh: need stable draft of interop doc by next week
klanz2: what IPR applies to contributed testcases? can we unpack zip?
<fjh> ACTION: tlr to review whether original XML Sig test cases can be used for derivative work (IPR etc), e.g. merlin.zip [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-89 - Review whether original XML Sig test cases can be used for derivative work (IPR etc), e.g. merlin.zip [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-09-11].
<klanz2> sorry, I was dropped, Ihate my viop client ;-(
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-testcases.html
<klanz2> back
fjh: are we going to remove duplicate tests?
<fjh> acck
<fjh> ac
sean: not worth work to remove
fjh: trying to use wiki for this pupose, lacks
weight of a document
... suggest continued use of wiki, pending different decision
<klanz2> bye bye
<jcc> exit