IRC log of xmlsec on 2007-09-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:11:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xmlsec
12:11:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:11:59 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:12:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #xmlsec
12:12:02 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be XMLSEC
12:12:02 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM scheduled to start in 48 minutes
12:12:04 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: XML Security Specifications Maintenance Working Group Teleconference
12:12:06 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 18 September 2007
12:45:28 [tlr]
tlr has joined #xmlsec
12:46:29 [fjh]
fjh has joined #xmlsec
12:51:44 [klanz2]
klanz2 has joined #xmlsec
12:51:57 [klanz2]
zakim, code?
12:51:57 [Zakim]
the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), klanz2
12:52:10 [jcc]
jcc has joined #xmlsec
12:53:00 [jcc]
Zakim, this will be XMLSEC
12:53:00 [Zakim]
ok, jcc; I see T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
12:53:30 [jcc]
Meeting: XML Security Maintenance Working Group Conference Call
12:54:05 [jcc]
Chair: Frederick Hirsch
12:54:12 [jcc]
Scribe: Juan Carlos Cruellas
12:54:16 [fjh]
Chair: Thomas Roessler
12:54:21 [jcc]
sorry Thomas...
12:54:32 [jcc]
could you post the URL for the agenda?
12:55:03 [fjh]
12:56:06 [PHB2]
PHB2 has joined #xmlsec
12:56:27 [PHB2]
zakim, code?
12:56:27 [Zakim]
the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), PHB2
12:57:23 [tlr]
12:58:16 [jcc]
Should I force RRSAgent, make log public, Thomas?
12:58:28 [tlr]
yeah, you can do that
12:58:33 [jcc]
12:58:35 [tlr]
thanks for setting up all the bots
12:58:42 [jcc]
RRSAgent, make log public
12:58:59 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
13:00:05 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM has now started
13:00:12 [Zakim]
13:00:28 [Zakim]
13:00:55 [Zakim]
13:00:57 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-skype
13:00:57 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:00:59 [Zakim]
13:01:17 [tlr]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:01:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.617.876.aaaa, PHB, ??P2, Thomas
13:01:21 [Zakim]
13:01:24 [jcc]
zakim, ??P2 is jcc
13:01:24 [Zakim]
+jcc; got it
13:01:28 [Zakim]
13:01:30 [tlr]
zakim, ??P5 is klanz2
13:01:30 [Zakim]
+klanz2; got it
13:01:41 [Zakim]
13:01:47 [tlr]
zakim, aaaa is sean
13:01:47 [Zakim]
+sean; got it
13:02:03 [jcc]
TOPIC: welcome
13:02:09 [esimon2]
esimon2 has joined #xmlsec
13:02:26 [jcc]
TOPIC: Introduction of members / roll call
13:02:41 [hal]
hal has joined #xmlsec
13:02:42 [Zakim]
13:03:00 [jcc]
TOPIC Administrativia
13:03:21 [jcc]
tlr: asks klanz2 on minutes version
13:03:30 [jcc]
konrad: he has sent already.
13:03:36 [brich]
brich has joined #xmlsec
13:03:38 [jcc]
tlr: will approve next meeting
13:04:16 [jcc]
tlr: remind booking hotel for November plenary, as there is a deadline
13:04:25 [rdmiller]
rdmiller has joined #xmlsec
13:04:46 [jcc]
tlr: 20(?) people at the workshop
13:04:58 [hal]
13:05:09 [jcc]
...there will be some slight changes in the final agenda. Somebody will not be able to attend
13:05:35 [jcc]
hal: requests shift in his presentation
13:05:49 [rmiller]
rmiller has joined #xmlsec
13:05:54 [jcc]
tlr: anything else on workshop?
13:06:07 [tlr]
topic: action item review
13:06:31 [jcc]
action#26: is still open
13:06:45 [Zakim]
13:06:46 [jcc]
action#71. sean: still open.
13:07:03 [jcc]
zakim, ??P11 rmiller
13:07:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P11 rmiller', jcc
13:07:04 [tlr]
zakim, ??P11 is rdmiller
13:07:04 [Zakim]
+rdmiller; got it
13:07:10 [jcc]
zakim, ??P11 is rmiller
13:07:10 [Zakim]
I already had ??P11 as rdmiller, jcc
13:07:29 [rmiller]
zakim, ??P11 is rmiller
13:07:29 [Zakim]
I already had ??P11 as rdmiller, rmiller
13:07:34 [jcc]
action 74: no further progress
13:07:48 [jcc]
action 81: CLOSED
13:07:57 [rmiller]
zakim, mute me
13:07:57 [Zakim]
sorry, rmiller, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
13:08:24 [jcc]
ACTION 82: konrad plans to close it today
13:08:31 [jcc]
action 83: as above
13:09:01 [jcc]
action 91 closed
13:10:12 [jcc]
bruce: on xpointers...
13:10:43 [tlr]
agenda+ xpointers
13:10:58 [jcc]
...doc talks xpointer outside fragment URI notation whereas the test cases show URIs in this section.
13:11:05 [jcc]
tlr: review afterwards
13:11:16 [jcc]
action 90 closed
13:11:17 [tlr]
ACTION-90 closed
13:11:17 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:11:54 [jcc]
<Can you hear me
13:12:19 [esimon2]
i can hear jcc
13:12:29 [sean]
* i can hear but poorly
13:12:34 [klanz2]
I can hear both
13:12:36 [esimon2]
i can hear both clearly
13:12:45 [brich]
i can jcc intermittently
13:12:45 [jcc]
I can hear evrybody
13:12:51 [tlr]
thanks for clarifying
13:13:30 [tlr]
I suspect it's a problem with my line and will drop, then reconnect.
13:13:30 [tlr]
zakim, drop thomas
13:13:30 [Zakim]
Thomas is being disconnected
13:13:32 [Zakim]
13:13:33 [klanz2]
mybe type to the chat
13:13:44 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-skype
13:13:44 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:13:45 [klanz2]
13:13:45 [Zakim]
13:13:55 [jcc]
konrad, Sean and Juan Carlos coordinated incorporation of new material to the interop
13:13:58 [tlr]
please indicate on IRC if you get voicemail
13:14:11 [tlr]
zakim, drop thomas
13:14:11 [Zakim]
Thomas is being disconnected
13:14:13 [Zakim]
13:14:19 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
13:14:19 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:14:21 [Zakim]
13:14:21 [tlr]
zakim, drop thomas
13:14:21 [Zakim]
Thomas is being disconnected
13:14:23 [Zakim]
13:14:24 [jcc]
...document... from what I have seen we all have committed new versions to the cvs
13:14:26 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-skype
13:14:26 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:14:27 [Zakim]
13:14:38 [klanz2]
thomas figthing his phone ;-)
13:14:46 [klanz2]
it's dead now
13:14:54 [esimon2]
I cannot hear tlr
13:15:02 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-skype
13:15:02 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
13:15:04 [Zakim]
13:15:18 [tlr]
13:15:32 [Zakim]
13:16:08 [jcc]
konrad: the document contains enough information as to allow people to start doing interop
13:16:44 [jcc]
...use firefox and they will get the output scroll bar...
13:16:55 [jcc]
...they will get nicer view.
13:17:13 [tlr]
ACTION-91 closed
13:17:13 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry... I don't know how to close ACTION yet
13:17:29 [sean]
13:17:46 [jcc]
konrad: we are allowed to introduce additional material if we identify it...
13:17:53 [tlr]
ack sean
13:18:01 [hal]
13:18:21 [jcc]
sean: do not see changes that he made yesterday at the document in the cvs
13:18:49 [jcc]
s/cvs/url in the agendta/
13:19:11 [jcc]
tlr: is the html doc the problem?
13:19:16 [jcc]
sean: yes
13:19:17 [klanz2]
ah, herte it is Add links to test signatures in sections and
13:19:24 [klanz2]
I'll do that now
13:19:32 [jcc]
tlr: transform the xml to html: konrad or jcc may do it.
13:19:45 [jcc]
...konrad, could you please do it?
13:20:10 [jcc]
action 92 sent that note, not feedback CLOSED
13:20:10 [tlr]
ACTION-92 done
13:20:37 [jcc]
action 93 konrad will do it today OPEN
13:20:38 [tlr]
13:20:38 [tlr]
ACTION-93 continued
13:20:51 [jcc]
13:20:58 [tlr]
zakim, take up agendum 1
13:20:58 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "xpointers" taken up [from tlr]
13:21:19 [PHB2]
I can
13:21:20 [jcc]
can you hear me?
13:21:20 [tlr]
ack jcc
13:21:23 [sean]
i can hear you
13:21:25 [esimon2]
I can hear jcc
13:21:31 [tlr]
I hear you, jcc
13:22:24 [klanz2]
phone line have strange delays today
13:22:58 [jcc]
bruce: go to the html document testcases.html
13:23:14 [klanz2]
build the document, sean check if your changes are there
13:23:33 [brich]
13:23:50 [klanz2]
13:24:37 [klanz2]
yes brich is right
13:24:44 [klanz2]
ill just fix that now
13:24:56 [klanz2]
13:25:08 [jcc]
what test case?
13:25:29 [tlr]
argh, there seems to be a bunch of problems
13:25:50 [jcc]
bruce: some "#" missed when identifying values of URI fragments.
13:25:53 [klanz2]
13:25:57 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
13:26:00 [brich]
brich has joined #xmlsec
13:26:09 [esimon2]
esimon2 has joined #xmlsec
13:26:44 [sean]
13:26:46 [rdmiller]
rdmiller has joined #xmlsec
13:27:09 [tlr]
ack sean
13:27:15 [klanz2]
13:27:32 [klanz2]
@jcc done
13:28:09 [jcc]
bruce: all the test cases for xpointers using xpointer framework
13:29:21 [jcc]
action: klanz2 to fix the xpointers in the xpointer framework adding the missing "#" sign to the URI fragments
13:29:21 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-94 - Fix the xpointers in the xpointer framework adding the missing \"#\" sign to the URI fragments [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-09-25].
13:29:51 [tlr]
ACTION: sean to generate new test signatures for xpointer
13:29:51 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-95 - Generate new test signatures for xpointer [on Sean Mullan - due 2007-09-25].
13:30:34 [jcc]
bruce: unclear for xpointer framework test cases whether the canonincalization is 1.0 or 1.1
13:31:22 [klanz2]
well there is a RECOMMENDATION for c14n1.1 in the spec
13:31:32 [klanz2]
in the section for reference generation
13:31:43 [sean]
sean has joined #xmlsec
13:31:45 [tlr]
13:31:47 [sean]
13:32:02 [tlr]
ack klanz2
13:32:02 [sean]
+1 to konrad
13:32:12 [jcc]
The ds:Reference for enveloped signatures will contain two Transform elements, namely; the enveloped signature transform and the one indicating canonical XML 1.0 (these test cases are not designed to deal with canonical XML 1.1). The ds:Reference for enveloping signatures will contain only the second one.
13:32:20 [tlr]
ack sean
13:32:59 [tlr]
ack tlr
13:32:59 [jcc]
bruce: agreed
13:33:22 [brich]
brich has joined #xmlsec
13:33:46 [jcc]
tlr: should not we have the same test cases for c14n1.1?
13:33:55 [klanz2]
updated '#' issues in press shift reload
13:35:29 [sean]
13:35:43 [tlr]
ack sean
13:35:48 [jcc]
juan carlos: xpointer framework test cases were requested without looking at the cannonicalization...
13:36:10 [jcc]
sean: these test cases should use canonicalization 1.1
13:36:32 [jcc]
13:36:37 [tlr]
ack jcc
13:36:46 [klanz2]
The ds:Reference for enveloped signatures will contain two Transform elements, namely; the enveloped signature transform and the one indicating canonical XML 1.0 (these test cases are not designed to deal with canonical XML 1.1). The ds:Reference for enveloping signatures will contain only the second one.
13:37:20 [sean]
13:37:25 [tlr]
13:38:01 [klanz2]
May I propose to use two references one using 1.0 and one using 1.1 if this has value in the defined testcases to demonstrate some difference
13:38:17 [klanz2]
if not let's just use 1.1
13:38:38 [tlr]
ack sean
13:38:40 [klanz2]
13:39:04 [jcc]
sean: should move away from 1.0
13:39:05 [tlr]
ack klanz2
13:39:50 [jcc]
konrad: worth to use both... in order to go deeper in behaviour.
13:40:00 [jcc]
tlr: people support using 1.1
13:40:26 [jcc]
bruce: support 1.1. Either one would be OK. Do not see difference in process
13:40:45 [klanz2]
13:41:22 [klanz2]
13:41:23 [jcc]
tlr: we agree that canonicalization 1.1 should be present
13:41:27 [tlr]
RESOLUTION: xpointer test cases to be changed to c14n 1.1
13:41:55 [tlr]
ack klanz2
13:42:15 [jcc]
action: klaz2 to switch xpointer test cases to c14n1.1
13:42:15 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - klaz2
13:42:22 [jcc]
action: klanz2 to switch xpointer test cases to c14n1.1
13:42:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-96 - Switch xpointer test cases to c14n1.1 [on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-09-25].
13:44:14 [klanz2]
is the way the xpointer test cases are designed xml:base tested as well ?
13:45:05 [esimon2]
esimon2 has joined #xmlsec
13:45:29 [esimon2]
I will try IRC one more time; if it fails again, I'll just stay on the phone.
13:45:35 [klanz2]
iu just looked into the cvs it is not having xml:base attributes
13:45:45 [klanz2]
13:45:49 [fjh2]
fjh2 has joined #xmlsec
13:45:54 [klanz2]
13:46:08 [klanz2]
no that's it
13:46:20 [tlr]
topic: Section 3.3, Implicit/Explicit rules
13:46:27 [tlr]
13:46:31 [jcc]
tlr: section 3.3
13:46:57 [jcc]
konrad: three new test cases checking implicit and explicit indication of canonicalization algorithms
13:47:37 [jcc]
...some test that should use 1.1 actually do not mention any algorithm, which by defalut means that they use 1.0
13:48:02 [tlr]
Topic: Section 3.5 DNs
13:48:08 [tlr]
13:48:26 [tlr]
13:48:40 [jcc]
sean: the test cases for this part are completed
13:48:56 [jcc]
...changed the way they were specified quite a bit and appreciate any comment on that...
13:49:27 [jcc]
..for the second part implemented 3 of the cases that seem to be the most important ones...
13:49:48 [klanz2]
Update to the XPointer test cases:
13:49:48 [klanz2]
The ds:Reference for enveloped signatures will ebventually contain two Transform elements, namely; the enveloped signature transform and the conversion from node set data to octet stream (canonical XML 1.1).
13:49:54 [jcc]
..the rest seem not to explicitly check the RFCs but only thigns nice to test
13:50:36 [tlr]
topic: xml:id, :lang, ... implementation status
13:50:40 [klanz2]
13:50:48 [klanz2]
not yet for xpointer and dname
13:50:48 [jcc]
sean: dropped material on these test case s in the cvs
13:51:03 [jcc]
bruce dropped signatures on xml:base and verified signatures from sean.
13:51:36 [jcc]
jcc: try to drop some material during this week
13:52:33 [rdmiller]
rdmiller has joined #xmlsec
13:52:51 [jcc]
topic: Best Practices
13:52:58 [jcc]
topic Best Practices
13:53:08 [jcc]
13:53:19 [jcc]
13:53:43 [hal]
ack klanz
13:54:09 [klanz2]
maybe type a few notes to the chat
13:54:25 [jcc]
esimon2: three months ago we discussed the DNs encoding and reversibility
13:54:39 [klanz2]
ed: encoding rules /issue of reversibility / security considerations /trying to get corrwect certificate
13:54:53 [klanz2]
... are the reversibility issues
13:54:55 [klanz2]
13:55:12 [klanz2]
... sean & ed: attrubute type makes a difference
13:55:18 [jcc]
... sean mentioned some questions, like if the attributetype makes a difference and whether
13:55:25 [jcc]
...there could be an attack on that...
13:55:28 [klanz2]
could there be an attack, when a different certificate sneaks in
13:55:36 [jcc]
..or you get a different certificate...
13:56:13 [jcc]
sean: does anyone follow the PKIX group progress?
13:56:37 [sean]
13:56:40 [jcc]
konrad updated the document in terms of xpointers
13:56:51 [hal]
13:57:09 [hal]
ack jcc
13:57:41 [klanz2]
13:58:06 [hal]
ack klanz
13:58:14 [jcc]
juan carlos: should be considered in the future
13:58:26 [jcc]
konrad: substituion attacks could be possible...
13:59:09 [hal]
13:59:12 [jcc]
konrad: strict rules for requesting certificates... should not this disminish the danger?
13:59:52 [jcc]
sean: it is also a matter of accuracy: with ASN1 you are exactly referring the right certificate...
14:00:16 [sean]
14:00:50 [hal]
ack hal
14:00:56 [jcc]
konrda: substitution attacks are managed outside XMLDSIG (XAdES, for instance ensure data from the certificate so that substitution may be detected)
14:01:03 [Zakim]
14:01:08 [klanz2]
dialing in again
14:01:13 [tlr]
zakim, code?
14:01:13 [Zakim]
the conference code is 965732 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), tlr
14:01:19 [jcc]
sean: review the whole RFC of encoding DNs...
14:01:44 [Zakim]
14:01:54 [tlr]
zakim, ??P20 is klanz2
14:01:54 [Zakim]
+klanz2; got it
14:02:08 [jcc]
sean: what we are doing in XMLDSIG is requiriung reversibility to a spec that did not pursued tahat
14:02:27 [jcc]
...we could come up witha mechanisms that grants that there is no loss of information in either way...
14:02:30 [klanz2]
is this ismilar to xml encoding rules?
14:02:40 [jcc]
next XMLDSIG versiohn should incorporate this feature
14:02:44 [klanz2]
14:03:16 [tlr]
14:03:19 [jcc]
hal: in Web services security... referring to a certificate is not easy ... and doing a DN comparison is something commonly done...
14:03:23 [klanz2]
14:03:46 [jcc]
sean: something to investigate in the next months to come
14:03:52 [Zakim]
14:03:53 [tlr]
ack klanz2
14:03:57 [tlr]
ack klanz
14:03:59 [tlr]
14:04:49 [jcc]
ed: interesting to explore this reversibility between ASN.1 and XML for DNs.
14:04:56 [jcc]
14:05:04 [tlr]
ack jcc
14:05:52 [jcc]
tlr: what I heard seems to go farther than best practices
14:06:09 [jcc]
... and could be a relevant item for a future working group
14:06:32 [jcc]
ed: will not be present in workshop but yes in November, in Boston
14:06:39 [jcc]
14:07:09 [Zakim]
14:07:13 [klanz2]
maybe its worth to point from the wiki to the minutes
14:07:21 [jcc]
tlr: should we add this into the wiki?
14:07:30 [tlr]
ack jcc
14:07:35 [hal]
hal has joined #xmlsec
14:08:09 [jcc]
ed: enough with the minutes...we will have to deal with this in the future
14:08:23 [jcc]
topic: decryption transform
14:08:24 [esimon2]
I will be dialing into the WorkShop next week though I will not be there in person.
14:08:37 [tlr]
14:09:10 [klanz2]
@ED, maybe you'd like to add the DNAME Reversibility topic here
14:09:19 [klanz2]
14:10:13 [jcc]
tlr: proposal for modifying decryption transform... hanging for number of days.. what people think?
14:10:19 [jcc]
... any interest on that now?
14:11:30 [klanz2]
any, luck with alex sanin ?
14:11:36 [jcc]
tlr: as we have not been able ot progress on this issue it might happen that we drop the issue
14:11:39 [jcc]
14:12:06 [jcc]
konrad: asks if tlr has been in contact with Aleksej (implementer)
14:12:14 [Zakim]
+ +017814aaaa
14:12:26 [fjh2]
zakim, aaa is fjh2
14:12:26 [Zakim]
sorry, fjh2, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa'
14:12:38 [fjh2]
zakim, +017814aaaa is fjh2
14:12:38 [Zakim]
+fjh2; got it
14:13:27 [klanz2]
we can close the actions to update the xpointer test cases I think
14:13:30 [tlr]
topic: Recommendation for regression tests?
14:13:41 [jcc]
tlr: come back to item 6
14:14:03 [klanz2]
14:14:06 [jcc]
tlr: should interop progression tests? to incorporate xmlsig former tests conveniently updated?
14:14:22 [jcc]
14:14:49 [jcc]
konrad: almost impossible to update former tests in xmlsig for incorporating c14n1.1 there
14:15:02 [esimon2]
Thomas -- I keep getting cut off IRC; please send me the raw version after the meeting ends so I can write up something re the reversibility issue re Konrad's suggestion. Thanks, Ed
14:15:02 [sean]
14:15:14 [jcc]
konrad: proposes to leave them as they are as legacy test cases
14:15:16 [klanz2]
14:15:16 [tlr]
q- klanz
14:15:17 [tlr]
ack sean
14:15:36 [jcc]
sean: doable, they have tools that already created all of them
14:15:53 [jcc]
sean: could modify them to nsert c14n1.1 in them...
14:16:01 [jcc]
tlr: it could be useful
14:16:21 [sean]
14:16:40 [jcc]
bruce: not sure...not familiar with these tests so not able to assess their difficulty
14:16:41 [tlr]
ack sean
14:17:02 [jcc]
sean: would not be expecting the others generatign signatures, but verifying them
14:17:16 [jcc]
konrad: agree with sean if we keep this informally.
14:18:29 [klanz2]
14:19:10 [jcc]
jcc +1
14:19:29 [jcc]
tlr: sean could generate these signatures and verification test cases could be performed on them
14:19:39 [jcc]
sean: will generate and drop them in the cvs
14:20:10 [jcc]
bruce: is it possible to know the format so that we may prepare the test framework?
14:20:38 [jcc]
sean: propose to generate the merlin 23 signature (the big one) with the c14n11 canonicalization there
14:20:55 [jcc]
...only the big one, not the rest
14:20:56 [klanz2]
14:21:07 [tlr]
ack klanz2
14:22:21 [jcc]
konrad: sean mentioned some test cases that never were tested...would it be worth to do something on them at the interop?
14:22:37 [klanz2]
also for the ok if we have time list
14:22:49 [Zakim]
14:22:55 [klanz2]
I can hear you okay
14:23:02 [jcc]
tlr: need for an agenda bit more formal
14:23:18 [jcc]
sorry was dropped...could anybody take mintes while I reconnect?
14:23:26 [tlr]
tlr: interop, any other business?
14:24:08 [sean]
14:24:08 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
14:24:09 [Zakim]
14:24:10 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:24:14 [tlr]
zakim, unmute me
14:24:14 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:24:15 [klanz2]
14:24:32 [klanz2]
whois it
14:24:47 [jcc]
zakim ??P2 is jcc
14:24:51 [jcc]
zakim, ??P2 is jcc
14:24:51 [Zakim]
+jcc; got it
14:26:28 [tlr]
frederick: other participants?
14:26:32 [tlr]
klanz2: comment mailing list?
14:26:39 [tlr]
tlr: public-xmlsec-comments
14:26:43 [sean]
14:27:18 [klanz2]
Action to tlr to create a small sction on the public page referring to the comments mailing list plus some list to relevant material
14:27:45 [tlr]
ACTIONS: frederick to point addtl participants at comment mailing list
14:28:02 [klanz2]
how many are there?
14:28:08 [klanz2]
14:28:29 [klanz2]
14:28:35 [jcc]
tlr: question on organizational issues.
14:28:48 [jcc]
very few registration so far.
14:28:51 [klanz2]
just me
14:29:05 [jcc]
... who will be at the interop?
14:29:10 [sean]
just me
14:29:12 [jcc]
jcc: only me
14:29:22 [brich]
just me
14:29:27 [jcc]
tlr: thank you...that is enough
14:29:40 [jcc]
topic: any other business
14:30:14 [jcc]
brich: is there somewhere something of the type "must do" for the interop?
14:30:44 [jcc]
bruce: xml space attribute "must do", xpointers "may do"
14:30:44 [klanz2]
14:30:52 [tlr]
ack klan
14:30:58 [jcc]
konrad: the more we may bring the better
14:31:06 [jcc]
14:31:29 [tlr]
ack jcc
14:31:30 [jcc]
14:31:33 [sean]
14:32:33 [tlr]
q+ klanz2
14:33:03 [brich]
my "must-do" assumption was ID, SPACE, LANG, BASE
14:33:25 [tlr]
ack sean
14:34:30 [jcc]
sean: test cases using XSLT may put problems as XSLT itself is not mandatory
14:34:31 [tlr]
ack klanz2
14:35:11 [jcc]
konrad: some test case that includes binary input in one of the transforms steps..
14:35:21 [jcc]
sean: it has to be optional at the end of the day
14:35:56 [brich]
14:36:00 [jcc]
14:36:26 [jcc]
tlr: the goal will be to have the things ready for progressing the canonicalization spec
14:36:39 [tlr]
ack brich
14:36:39 [jcc]
...tlr: no public report of the interop...
14:36:43 [brich]
some interops publish only impl A, B, C...
14:37:51 [jcc]
tlr: might be one way... although it will depend on the final result...
14:38:00 [tlr]
14:38:02 [tlr]
ack jcc
14:38:03 [jcc]
tlr: would not like to make a decission just now
14:39:13 [klanz2]
14:40:16 [klanz2]
we do need a certain number implementations and I'm confident we'll all be quite successful ...
14:40:47 [jcc]
jcc: proposes that everybody is free to decide whether is mentioned or not in the public report
14:41:13 [jcc]
tlr: need to think more about that: anonymous report as proposed by brich could be one way
14:42:15 [klanz2]
14:42:28 [Zakim]
14:44:14 [klanz2]
xmldsig/defCan-2 and xmldsig/defCan-3 contains an xslt transform and I'll put "(optional) " next to the test name
14:44:25 [Zakim]
14:44:29 [jcc]
tlr: thank you everybody for attend the meeting.
14:44:33 [Zakim]
14:44:33 [klanz2]
bye bye, lookin forward
14:44:36 [Zakim]
- +1.512.401.aabb
14:44:38 [Zakim]
14:44:38 [tlr]
14:44:39 [Zakim]
14:44:46 [tlr]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:44:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
14:45:19 [tlr]
rrsagent, please make record public
14:46:18 [Zakim]
14:46:25 [klanz2]
14:46:46 [klanz2]
14:47:02 [klanz2]
14:47:19 [Zakim]
14:47:22 [tlr]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:47:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Thomas.a, fjh2
14:55:04 [Zakim]
This conference is in overtime; all ports must be freed
14:55:56 [Zakim]
14:56:00 [Zakim]
14:56:01 [Zakim]
T&S_XMLSEC()9:00AM has ended
14:56:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were sean, PHB, Thomas, jcc, Hal_Lockhart, klanz2, Ed_Simon, brich, rdmiller, Thomas.a, fjh2
15:36:23 [klanz2]
15:36:49 [klanz2]
Thomas, ed was refeering to soem DNAME related material he and sean drafted where can this be found?
16:41:02 [PHB2]
PHB2 has left #xmlsec