IRC log of crypto on 2013-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:55:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #crypto
19:55:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:55:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:55:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SEC_WebCryp
19:55:31 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
19:55:32 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
19:55:32 [trackbot]
Date: 15 April 2013
19:55:41 [wseltzer]
Regrets+ Virginie
19:57:32 [jyates]
jyates has joined #crypto
19:58:36 [Zakim]
SEC_WebCryp()4:00PM has now started
19:58:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.857.928.aaaa
19:59:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.214.aabb
20:00:02 [ddahl]
ddahl has joined #crypto
20:00:31 [jyates]
20:00:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.257.aacc
20:00:53 [rsleevi]
rsleevi has joined #crypto
20:01:02 [Zakim]
20:01:04 [rsleevi]
Zakim, who is on the line?
20:01:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, rsleevi.
20:01:06 [karen]
aacc is Karen
20:01:09 [rsleevi]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:01:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.857.928.aaaa, +1.650.214.aabb, +1.512.257.aacc, ddahl
20:01:16 [rsleevi]
Zakim, aabb is Google
20:01:16 [Zakim]
+Google; got it
20:01:19 [rsleevi]
Zakim, Google has rsleevi
20:01:19 [Zakim]
+rsleevi; got it
20:01:37 [Zakim]
20:01:38 [karen]
Zakim, aacc is Karen
20:01:39 [Zakim]
+Karen; got it
20:01:51 [jyates]
Zakim, aaaa is jyates
20:01:51 [Zakim]
+jyates; got it
20:02:07 [Zakim]
20:02:17 [wseltzer]
zakim, ??p10 is I
20:02:17 [Zakim]
+wseltzer; got it
20:02:22 [nvdbleek]
nvdbleek has joined #crypto
20:02:38 [nvdbleek]
zakim, code?
20:02:38 [Zakim]
the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, nvdbleek
20:03:03 [Zakim]
20:03:19 [nvdbleek]
zakim, I am ??P11
20:03:19 [Zakim]
+nvdbleek; got it
20:03:38 [nvdbleek]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jyates, Google, Karen, ddahl, [IPcaller], wseltzer, nvdbleek
20:03:40 [Zakim]
Google has rsleevi
20:03:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nvdbleek, rsleevi, ddahl, jyates, RRSAgent, sangrae, hhalpin, Zakim, karen, timeless, slightlyoff, wseltzer, trackbot
20:04:22 [arunranga]
arunranga has joined #crypto
20:04:37 [Zakim]
20:04:46 [hhalpin]
Zakim, IPcaller.a is hhalpin
20:04:46 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
20:04:54 [hhalpin]
chair: hhalpin
20:05:00 [hhalpin]
Zakim, pick a scribe
20:05:00 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ddahl
20:05:11 [hhalpin]
scribe: ddahl
20:05:28 [hhalpin]
20:05:34 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: are the correct minutes
20:05:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.294.aadd
20:05:39 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: are the correct minutes
20:05:48 [arunranga]
Zakim, aadd is arunranga
20:05:48 [Zakim]
+arunranga; got it
20:05:56 [hhalpin]
topic: Closing issues
20:05:56 [rsleevi]
20:05:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-7 -- Deciding if we integrate a high level API in our deliverable -- open
20:05:56 [trackbot]
20:05:58 [hhalpin]
20:05:58 [trackbot]
ISSUE-7 -- Deciding if we integrate a high level API in our deliverable -- open
20:05:58 [trackbot]
20:05:59 [ddahl]
hhalpin: mainly dealing in housekeeping today
20:06:08 [ddahl]
hhalpin: issue 7 is first
20:06:14 [rsleevi]
20:06:20 [arunranga]
20:06:22 [ddahl]
20:06:22 [hhalpin]
20:06:23 [rsleevi]
20:06:37 [markw]
markw has joined #crypto
20:06:50 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: is CLOSED due to ddahl's document, but the document may not end up being Rec-track
20:07:06 [hhalpin]
20:07:06 [trackbot]
ISSUE-17 -- Define the scope and API for custom key attributes -- open
20:07:06 [trackbot]
20:07:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.540.aaee
20:07:33 [markw]
Zakim, aaee is me
20:07:33 [Zakim]
+markw; got it
20:07:34 [ddahl]
hhalpin: issue 17 was non-contreversial as well
20:07:46 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: is closed and the answer is "there iwll not be aan API for custom key attributes
20:07:49 [rsleevi]
20:07:52 [hhalpin]
20:07:53 [ddahl]
20:08:14 [markw]
Zakim, markw is Netflix
20:08:14 [Zakim]
+Netflix; got it
20:08:22 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: closed and the answer is there will not be an API for custom key attributes
20:08:32 [markw]
Zakim, Netflix has markw, skelly
20:08:32 [Zakim]
+markw, skelly; got it
20:08:47 [ddahl]
hhalpin: next is issue 22
20:08:53 [hhalpin]
20:08:57 [ddahl]
... cloneable discussion
20:08:58 [hhalpin]
I do not aymeric
20:08:59 [rsleevi]
20:08:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-22 -- Should CryptoOperations be clonable -- open
20:08:59 [trackbot]
20:09:10 [hhalpin]
does anyone else want clonability?
20:09:19 [ddahl]
hhalpin: amyeric is the only one who wanted clonaeability
20:10:10 [ddahl]
rsleevi: not stong feelings either way, aymeric's use cases and explanations were not ideal, not going to cry if it goes away, even though there may actualy be solid usecases
20:10:33 [ddahl]
hhalpin: we could keep it open and if no uses cases come up, we close it
20:10:48 [ddahl]
rsleevi: there are use cases, but, do we need thins in v. 1.0?
20:10:57 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who's making noise?
20:11:05 [arunranga]
Can we list the strong use cases for .clone that are better than Aymeric's scary ones?
20:11:10 [Zakim]
hhalpin, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (25%), hhalpin (10%), arunranga (74%)
20:11:15 [arunranga]
Zakim, mute me
20:11:15 [Zakim]
arunranga should now be muted
20:11:49 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-22 until we have a more tighter use-case and then add a new issue for that use-case
20:11:53 [rsleevi]
20:11:55 [hhalpin]
20:11:57 [ddahl]
20:11:58 [sangrae]
20:12:06 [nvdbleek]
20:12:07 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: Closed ISSUE-22 until we have a more tighter use-case and then add a new issue for that use-case
20:12:28 [hhalpin]
20:12:30 [Zakim]
+ +
20:12:32 [hhalpin]
that's in SysApps now
20:12:44 [ddahl]
hhalpin: issue 32, secure element, moved to sysaps WG
20:13:13 [mountie]
mountie has joined #crypto
20:13:17 [rsleevi]
20:13:21 [ddahl]
hhalpin: anyone here in sysaps? establishing a connection with them might make some sense
20:13:41 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi
20:13:47 [karen]
20:13:50 [hhalpin]
anyone else from sysapps here?
20:13:53 [ddahl]
hhalpin: sysaps WG should be notified that we are not doing anything with secure element
20:14:17 [ddahl]
rsleevi: gemalto has proposed the secure element API
20:14:36 [ddahl]
rsleevi: not aware of any formal agreements on implementing it
20:14:36 [hhalpin]
20:15:07 [ddahl]
hhalpin: this is a scoping issue and we are agreeing to not handle smartcard/seciure element apis
20:15:16 [hhalpin]
ack karen
20:15:20 [ddahl]
hhalpin: proposes that we close issue 32
20:15:56 [MIchael]
MIchael has joined #CRYPTO
20:15:59 [hhalpin]
So we want to interoperate with any future work (likely via Key Discovery work) in terms of SmartCard and SecureElements, but we are not writing our own APIs for these areas
20:16:15 [ddahl]
karen: question: assume the sec element api made its way into sysapps...
20:16:35 [rsleevi]
20:16:35 [ddahl]
if we want to convert or map the sysapp key to the web crypto API?
20:16:38 [nvdbleek]
sounds good to me, but keeping a door open for smart card access through a discovery API might be an option in my opinion
20:16:41 [ddahl]
... how is that done
20:16:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.257.aagg
20:16:53 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: ISSUE-32 closed insofar as Secure Elements is now in SysApps, and interoperability with any future API will be done via interoperability with Key Discovery Draft.
20:16:56 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi
20:16:57 [Scott_Kelly]
Scott_Kelly has joined #crypto
20:17:03 [ddahl]
karen: sooner or later we will need to deal with interoperability
20:17:25 [mountie]
Zakim, list attendees
20:17:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.857.928.aaaa, +1.650.214.aabb, +1.512.257.aacc, ddahl, rsleevi, [IPcaller], Karen, jyates, wseltzer, nvdbleek, hhalpin, +1.415.294.aadd,
20:17:28 [Zakim]
... arunranga, +1.408.540.aaee, markw, skelly, +, +1.512.257.aagg
20:17:59 [mountie]
Zakim, aaff is mountie
20:17:59 [Zakim]
+mountie; got it
20:18:03 [ddahl]
rsleevi: not going to deal with apis not in scope or theoretical implenations
20:18:23 [wseltzer]
20:18:29 [ddahl]
rsleevi: we recognize that this is not a problem for this WG to take on at this time
20:19:02 [ddahl]
karen: we don not want to solve the problem right now, but do WG generally work together with overlapping interests?
20:19:12 [jeffh]
jeffh has joined #crypto
20:19:41 [ddahl]
hhalpin: sometimes you have atask force between 2 WGs for related work
20:20:26 [sangrae]
IPcaller is sangrae. Sangrae Cho from ETRI
20:20:55 [ddahl]
... we might want to clarify that we will handle keys from secure elements via key discovery api at alater time
20:21:37 [rsleevi]
20:21:46 [ddahl]
hhalpin: within a use case doc we can specify the interop here
20:21:48 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi
20:22:14 [ddahl]
rsleevi: the proposal in sysaps by gemalto is not the same as our own use case
20:23:01 [ddahl]
rsleevi: there is very clear charter sep. between the issues, but there are 2 different problems here between the WGs
20:23:08 [nvdbleek]
you might also have a look at the wiki page I started about certificate discovery
20:23:39 [hhalpin]
PROPSOAL: ISSUE-32 closed insofar as Secure Elements is now in SysApps, and interoperability with any future API will be done via interoperability with Key Discovery Draft.
20:23:46 [hhalpin]
20:23:59 [hhalpin]
20:24:00 [nvdbleek]
20:24:16 [mountie]
20:24:16 [rsleevi]
-1, due to the committment on interoperability for as of yet unspecified APIs
20:24:30 [ddahl]
i agree with rsleevi here
20:24:31 [rsleevi]
Would prefer the second clause dropped
20:24:45 [sangrae]
20:24:55 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: ISSUE-32 closed insofar as Secure Elements is now in SysApps
20:24:58 [rsleevi]
20:25:05 [ddahl]
hhalpin: we could say possible future interop
20:25:08 [ddahl]
20:25:15 [hhalpin]
any objections to simpler terminology?
20:25:45 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: ISSUE-32 closed insofar as Secure Elements is now in SysApps
20:25:48 [rsleevi]
@hhalpin - there are lots of other interop issues beyond key discovery (eg: handling of APDUs and crypto operations via smart cards, hence my objection
20:25:50 [ddahl]
hhalpin: no objections, discussion next
20:26:16 [hhalpin]
section: unwrap and wrapping
20:26:17 [ddahl]
hhalpin: unwarp/ wrap and separation of alg and operation params again
20:27:14 [rsleevi]
20:27:18 [ddahl]
markw: I am suggesting we just rename tsome things and move things around as there has been some confusion in reading the key gen / operation params
20:28:07 [ddahl]
markw: we should separate and clarify the dictionaries used in algs and operations
20:28:08 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi
20:28:22 [ddahl]
rsleevi: naming is hard
20:28:55 [ddahl]
rsleevi: we should simplify things, however, not sure if there is no overlpa at all
20:29:07 [markw]
20:29:12 [markw]
20:29:13 [ddahl]
rsleevi: you don't want to be able to generate a key that you cannot use
20:29:50 [hhalpin]
thus, the relationship to operation and algorithm parameters
20:30:06 [hhalpin]
20:30:08 [hhalpin]
ack markw
20:30:31 [ddahl]
markw: agree with the comments that this is hard to nail down here
20:30:59 [rsleevi]
20:31:16 [ddahl]
markw: not sure how the operation params need to be re-specified once the key is already generated
20:31:32 [hhalpin]
ack rsleevi?
20:32:15 [ddahl]
rsleevi: i am in agreement in the idea of if we move paramters to the key we should not have to specify in operation, but there are edge cases here
20:32:35 [ddahl]
... when we start writing example code the spec vastly changes
20:32:46 [ddahl]
... some hesitation here yest
20:33:23 [ddahl]
hhalpin: makes sense to walk through this very carefully in the face to face
20:33:29 [rsleevi]
ack rsleevi
20:33:33 [ddahl]
.. or not as time may be limited?
20:33:42 [hhalpin]
topic: f2f scheduling
20:34:11 [ddahl]
rsleevi: i am planning on working through the issues before our f2f
20:34:24 [hhalpin]
20:34:32 [ddahl]
rsleevi: [the devil is in the details]
20:34:33 [hhalpin]
lunch -> 4:30 PM
20:34:40 [hhalpin]
2 hours and 30 minutes
20:34:49 [markw]
20:35:17 [ddahl]
hhalpin: lets look at the schedule to see where we can spend time on this
20:35:59 [hhalpin]
20:36:01 [hhalpin]
ack markw