19:16:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
19:16:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/11-crypto-irc
19:16:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:16:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #crypto
19:16:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be CRYPT
19:16:41 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM scheduled to start 16 minutes ago
19:16:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Cryptography Working Group Teleconference
19:16:42 <trackbot> Date: 11 August 2014
19:35:17 <jyates> jyates has joined #crypto
19:48:49 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
19:49:51 <virginie> zakim, agenda ?
19:49:51 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
19:49:59 <virginie> agenda+ welcome
19:50:40 <virginie> agenda+ Addition of curves (NUMS and 25519) in Bug 25839 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25839
19:51:13 <virginie> agenda+ Specification extensibility in Bug 25618 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618
19:51:35 <virginie> agenda+ W3C Process and the Director's consideration of the transition to Candidate Recommendation
19:53:36 <bal> bal has joined #crypto
19:53:46 <virginie> zakim, agenda order 3, 1, 2
19:53:46 <Zakim> ok, virginie
19:53:51 <virginie> agenda?
19:54:24 <virginie> zakim, agenda order 1, 4, 2, 3
19:54:24 <Zakim> ok, virginie
19:54:27 <virginie> agenda?
19:54:29 <Zakim> SEC_WebCryp()3:00PM has now started
19:54:35 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:55:05 <Zakim> +Wendy
19:58:34 <Zakim> +JYates
19:58:37 <markw> markw has joined #crypto
19:58:52 <Zakim> +??P3
19:58:56 <mdwood> mdwood has joined #crypto
19:59:06 <virginie> zakim, ??P3 is me
19:59:06 <Zakim> +virginie; got it
19:59:15 <wseltzer> zakim, Microsoft has BAL
19:59:15 <Zakim> +BAL; got it
19:59:16 <virginie> zakim, who is on the bridge
19:59:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the bridge', virginie
19:59:28 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone
19:59:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', virginie
19:59:38 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
19:59:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Wendy, JYates, virginie
19:59:39 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has BAL
19:59:56 <kodonog> kodonog has joined #crypto
20:00:01 <wseltzer> regrets+ rsleevi
20:00:27 <Zakim> +MarkW
20:00:48 <markw> Zakim, MarkW is me
20:00:48 <Zakim> +markw; got it
20:01:08 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:01:48 <Zakim> + +1.503.712.aaaa
20:01:53 <wseltzer> BAL: Can we invite the submitter of the 25519 curve?
20:02:04 <nvdbleek> nvdbleek has joined #crypto
20:02:05 <wseltzer> Virginie: As chair I'd like to invite Trevor
20:02:06 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #crypto
20:02:17 <nvdbleek> zakim, code?
20:02:17 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), nvdbleek
20:02:22 <wseltzer> zakim, Microsoft.a is selfissued
20:02:22 <Zakim> +selfissued; got it
20:02:41 <wseltzer> zakim, aaaa is Matt_Wood
20:02:41 <Zakim> +Matt_Wood; got it
20:02:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:02:51 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:02:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Wendy, JYates, virginie, markw, selfissued, Matt_Wood, [IPcaller]
20:02:52 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has BAL
20:02:55 <rbarnes> rbarnes has joined #crypto
20:02:59 <harry> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
20:02:59 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
20:03:28 <virginie> agenda?
20:04:06 <Zakim> +??P9
20:04:10 <Zakim> +??P8
20:04:27 <wseltzer> zakim, ??p9 is rbarnes
20:04:27 <Zakim> +rbarnes; got it
20:04:33 <wseltzer> zakim, ??p8 is nvdbleek
20:04:33 <Zakim> +nvdbleek; got it
20:04:43 <nvdbleek> zakim, who is on the phone
20:04:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', nvdbleek
20:04:49 <Zakim> +karen_oDonoghue
20:04:54 <wseltzer> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Wendy, JYates, virginie, markw, selfissued, Matt_Wood, hhalpin, rbarnes, nvdbleek, karen_oDonoghue
20:04:54 <nvdbleek> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:04:56 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has BAL
20:04:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Wendy, JYates, virginie, markw, selfissued, Matt_Wood, hhalpin, rbarnes, nvdbleek, karen_oDonoghue
20:04:56 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has BAL
20:04:57 <virginie> zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:04:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Wendy, JYates, virginie, markw, selfissued, Matt_Wood, hhalpin, rbarnes, nvdbleek, karen_oDonoghue
20:04:58 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has BAL
20:05:12 <nvdbleek> zakim, mute me
20:05:12 <Zakim> nvdbleek should now be muted
20:05:25 <virginie> agenda?
20:06:21 <kodonog> i can if necessary
20:06:49 <kodonog> scribenick: kodonog
20:07:27 <kodonog> scribe: kodonog
20:08:03 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 4
20:08:03 <Zakim> agendum 4. "W3C Process and the Director's consideration of the transition to Candidate Recommendation" taken up [from virginie]
20:08:09 <vgb> vgb has joined #crypto
20:08:16 <kodonog> Ryan Sleevi unable to make the call, Virginie will send an extract of his email to mailing list
20:08:21 <wseltzer> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi
20:08:30 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:08:40 <vgb> zakim, [microsoft.a] is me
20:08:40 <Zakim> +vgb; got it
20:08:42 <wseltzer> services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-trza
20:09:07 <harry> Director = TimBL
20:09:18 <kodonog> Topic: Reminders about W3C process
20:09:26 <harry> but also acting COO and CEO act in his place sometimes, i.e. Ralph Swick and Jeff Jaffe
20:09:56 <kodonog> Wendy need to assure W3C management that all the objections raised during Last Call have been addressed.
20:10:37 <virginie> q+
20:10:54 <kodonog> Wendy: Need to have in our archive, minutes, and bugzilla the discussions related to questions, sufficient to satisfy the Director
20:11:36 <rbarnes> this is far from the most brutal LC process i've seen
20:11:50 <kodonog> Wendy: Not possible to reach perfection, but hopefully a specification that will result in interoperable implementations to satisfy most
20:13:30 <kodonog> virginie: Based on the amount of feedback during LC and our efforts to address that feedback, are you (Harry and Wendy) comfortable that we have sufficient data to satisfy.
20:13:50 <wseltzer> [not Jeff Jaffe but Philippe le Hegaret acting as Director's desginee]
20:14:21 <kodonog> harry: What is less clear, is if the resolution is in order based on some of the discussion on some of the bugs.
20:14:43 <kodonog> virginie: Do you see any bugs that have not been properly closed?
20:15:06 <kodonog> harry: we need to wait until all the bugs are closed to properly assess.
20:15:08 <harry> So obviously there's been some strong disagreement, and the Director will look more closely at those, in particular one's where formal objections have been filed.
20:15:08 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 2
20:15:08 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Addition of curves (NUMS and 25519) in Bug 25839 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25839" taken up [from virginie]
20:15:32 <wseltzer> ack virginie
20:15:36 <harry> I believe there is one Member Formal objection that is in principle resolved, and a non-member objection which is not clearly resolved.
20:15:42 <kodonog> Topic: Addition of curves (bug #25839)
20:17:27 <markw> q+
20:17:29 <kodonog> virginie: Three options detailed in email earlier today. 1) add NUMS as an extension; 2) defer extension work; and 3) start work on a new extension (have editor)
20:17:32 <wseltzer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Aug/0083.html
20:17:33 <bal> q+
20:17:33 <selfissued> q+
20:18:39 <kodonog> virginie: Call of decision over email in the next two weeks
20:18:45 <wseltzer> ack markw
20:19:17 <rbarnes> q+
20:19:22 <kodonog> markw: option 1 is not clear, do you mean writing a new specification as a separate document?
20:19:40 <kodonog> virginie: yes, a separate document
20:19:45 <wseltzer> acl ba;
20:19:46 <markw> q-
20:19:48 <wseltzer> acl bal
20:19:51 <harry> Zakim who's making noise?
20:19:53 <wseltzer> ack bal
20:20:20 <kodonog> bal: would like to add an option 2.5.
20:21:09 <kodonog> bal: given the political situation in the IETF and the CFRG and the Internet at large, the W3C should not publish a spec with only NIST curves at this time
20:21:16 <harry> +1
20:21:42 <kodonog> bal: if we are going to publish at this time, we need something besides NIST curves.
20:21:59 <harry> The debate is CFRG is quite vigorous
20:22:01 <kodonog> bal: what those curves are exactly is going to be driven by the IETF CFRG process
20:22:33 <harry> I think Trevor plans to add Ed25519
20:22:52 <kodonog> bal: move the spec forward with the NUMS curves as a placeholder for whatever the IETF process results in
20:23:12 <virginie> q?
20:23:18 <harry> q+
20:23:20 <kodonog> bal: if that doesn't get implemented, it can be addressed later in the steps towards Recommendation
20:23:35 <kodonog> bal: put everything in extensions not appropriate at this time
20:24:29 <kodonog> virginie: so, you are proposing to add the additional algorithms to the main spec now
20:24:49 <rbarnes> but if W3C does a separate process, we get to have 2x the politics!
20:25:03 <virginie> other option is : integration of NUMS Non-NIST curves in the main spec as a feature at risk and remove it at Candidate Recommendation, if it happens that no interoperable implementation is demonstrated and aligned with IETF/CFRG recommendations
20:25:08 <kodonog> bal: we should not shovel this off to a parellel extensions spec when the NIST curves are in the main spec
20:25:40 <virginie> q?
20:25:42 <wseltzer> ack selfissued
20:27:01 <kodonog> selfissued: arguing from the point of testing our extensibility models, we need to have the extensions that didn't make the deadline test the extension process
20:27:34 <kodonog> selfissued: 25519 gives us the opportunity to test our mechanism
20:27:41 <wseltzer> ack rbarnes
20:27:45 <wseltzer> ack nvdbleek
20:27:54 <markw> +1 to what Mike says about needing an extension spec to prove out our extensibility points - and needing to do the editing to add the extension points
20:28:10 <kodonog> rbarnes: partially agree with Brian, we do need a path to get away from NIST curves,
20:28:27 <kodonog> rbarnes: I am less concerned that this needs to occur in the base specification
20:29:24 <kodonog> rbarnes: keep the main spec focused on what we have a lot of experience with, but show working group committment to address not-NIST curves
20:29:24 <virginie> q?
20:29:30 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:29:38 <wseltzer> zakim, rbarnes is really nvdbleek_
20:29:38 <Zakim> +nvdbleek_; got it
20:29:46 <wseltzer> zakim, nvdbleek is really rbarnes
20:29:46 <Zakim> +rbarnes; got it
20:30:02 <wseltzer> zakim, mute nvdbleek
20:30:02 <Zakim> nvdbleek_ should now be muted
20:30:04 <rbarnes> q+
20:31:02 <kodonog> harry: we could add to main spec now and delete at a later stage on the path of publication if there isn't IETF CFRG consensus
20:32:16 <kodonog> harry: agree with Brian that we need something in the main spec, agree with Mike that we need to test the extension mechanism
20:32:45 <kodonog> harry: Ryan is clearly very unhappy with the NUMS curves and doesn't not support their addition
20:33:11 <harry> In generally, historically W3C wants to co-operate with IETF and CFRG in this matter.
20:33:21 <kodonog> bal: what is the timeline for going to CR?
20:34:31 <harry> We should exit Last Call to CR at end of August (unless we keep getting stucks on bugs)
20:34:35 <kodonog> harry: target 3 months but may take longer, at earliest we will exit CR at the end of November
20:34:44 <virginie> note we still have few bugs open https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=web%20crypto&list_id=42092
20:34:48 <harry> We should exit CR at earliest end of Nov.
20:34:59 <harry> Assuming test suite goes well.
20:35:00 <kodonog> bal: if CFRG can't get a recommendation out by November there probably won't be one soon
20:35:40 <kodonog> bal: as for implementations, we plan to put them in our Java plug=ins
20:35:40 <virginie> q?
20:35:47 <wseltzer> ack rbarnes
20:36:03 <kodonog> bal: it won't be implementation that is the problem, it will be consensus of the cryptographic community
20:36:52 <kodonog> rbarnes: we can write an implementable spec with this feature at risk approach, the real problem is a testable spec
20:37:16 <virginie> q?
20:37:26 <bal> q+
20:37:29 <wseltzer> ack bal
20:37:30 <bal> q-
20:37:36 <kodonog> rbarnes: because of this I would prefer to stick with more mature curves in the base spec
20:37:43 <selfissued> q+
20:38:04 <kodonog> bal: another way to look at this is to take elliptic curves out of the base spec
20:38:23 <kodonog> bal: and create an elliptic curve spec
20:38:38 <kodonog> bal: i offer this for completeness, but i don't think it is the right way to go
20:38:47 <kodonog> rbarnes: there is a baby in that bathwater
20:39:01 <virginie> q?
20:39:11 <harry> q+
20:39:18 <wseltzer> ack selfissued
20:39:22 <kodonog> virginie: ok, lets forget that option
20:39:50 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:39:52 <kodonog> selfissued: don't drop the NIST curves because they are in use in embedded environments
20:40:10 <rbarnes> no, harry, it is :)
20:40:17 <kodonog> harry: if we are going to be fair, Brian's option makes some sense.
20:40:37 <virginie> but no one is really supporting it...
20:40:40 <bal> q+
20:40:58 <bal> q-
20:41:08 <harry> bal, feel free to type it in IRC
20:41:56 <harry> I would like to see all options voted for.
20:42:04 <kodonog> virginie: we are going to provide something in the end
20:42:11 <harry> Rather than you just choosing one virginie.
20:42:50 <harry> In fact, that is the process we should do for each remaining issue.
20:43:10 <virginie> Option 1 : integration of NUMS curve as an extension to the Web Crypto API specification, based on what was proposed by Brian LaMacchia (potentially removing NIST curves)
20:43:24 <rbarnes> where extension == separate doc
20:43:39 <kodonog> PROPOSED: Option 1 from the email.
20:43:40 <virginie> Option 1 : integration of NUMS curve as an extension to the Web Crypto API specification, based on what was proposed by Brian LaMacchia (potentially removing NIST curve is a separate specs) where extension
20:43:47 <harry> Can you clarify the removing NIST curves?
20:44:12 <wseltzer> Option 1: addition of NUMS curve as an extension to the Web Crypto API specification,  based on what was proposed by Brian LaMacchia
20:44:28 <kodonog> virginie: Option 1: (see Wendy's text)
20:44:30 <virginie> Option 1 : addition of NUMS curve as an extension to the Web Crypto API specification, based on what was proposed by Brian LaMacchia  where extension is a separate document
20:44:49 <rbarnes> +1
20:44:52 <wseltzer> [+1 agree, -1 object, 0 can live with]
20:44:57 <selfissued> 0
20:44:59 <kodonog> +1
20:45:03 <bal> -1
20:45:04 <markw> +1 (possibly with note in main spec that this work is ongoing)
20:45:07 <harry> -1
20:45:15 <nvdbleek> +1
20:45:27 <virginie> +1
20:46:03 <rbarnes> +1 (obo rsleevi)
20:46:26 <virginie> as a comment ryan would prefer separate document
20:47:04 <kodonog> PROPOSED: Option 3 from mailing list: put NUMS in main specification with Feature at Risk notation
20:47:24 <virginie> Option 3 :  integration of NUMS Non-NIST curves in the main spec as a feature at risk and remove it at Candidate Recommendation, if it happens that no interoperable implementation is demonstrated, aligning with IETF / CFRG
20:47:24 <kodonog> virginie: with clarification that we would align with IETF CFRG
20:48:42 <rbarnes> -1
20:48:44 <selfissued> +1
20:48:47 <harry> +1
20:48:48 <bal> +1
20:48:51 <markw> 0
20:48:52 <virginie> [+1 agree, -1 object, 0 can live with]
20:48:57 <nvdbleek> 0
20:49:07 <virginie> ryan sleevu might object to this one
20:49:10 <rbarnes> -1 (obo rsleevi)
20:49:19 <kodonog> 0 ( or -0.5)
20:49:31 <virginie> Option 2 : agreement as a principle to integrate the NUMS curves into the WG deliverables, but expect Candidate Recommendation to make decision to integrate the algorithm in the main spec or as an extension, final set of algorithm would align with IETF/CFRG recommendations for TLS deployment
20:49:37 <harry> q+
20:49:51 <kodonog> PROPOSED: Option 2 (see Virginie text)
20:49:55 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:50:32 <kodonog> harry: Option 2 will probably mean a return to Last Call
20:50:46 <kodonog> rbarnes: doesn't believe that this is the case
20:50:51 <rbarnes> it seems like a new LC would be necessary either way
20:50:57 <kodonog> virginiie: Option 3 may also lead to LC
20:51:00 <rbarnes> maybe not technically, but it's significant enough
20:51:14 <bal> q+
20:51:25 <harry> Which basically means we have to *explicitly* return to this question before exiting CR.
20:51:34 <wseltzer> ack16:50 < kodonog> virginiie: Option 3 may also lead to LC
20:51:42 <harry> It could go back to extension.
20:51:52 <wseltzer> s/ack16:50 < kodonog> virginiie: Option 3 may also lead to LC//
20:51:54 <wseltzer> ack bal
20:52:09 <kodonog> bal: if something is a feature at risk and gets dropped during CR, does it get dropped completely or go to an extension
20:52:33 <kodonog> virginie: that would depend on the participants of the working group, could become an extension
20:52:53 <kodonog> bal: I just want to clarify that it doesn't get dropped completely
20:53:16 <selfissued> 0
20:53:17 <kodonog> virginie: that is the principal of having a road map that we are committing to doing this work
20:53:19 <nvdbleek> 0
20:53:20 <markw> -0.5
20:53:24 <bal> 0
20:53:29 <rbarnes> -0.5
20:53:35 <harry> 0
20:53:45 <rbarnes> as in "0 but it would make me sad"
20:53:57 <kodonog> -0.5
20:53:59 <rbarnes> -0
20:54:25 <markw> ah, mine was "-1, but I don't feel really strongly"
20:54:39 <kodonog> virginie: I'm going to make a call for consensus over the mailing list
20:54:55 <kodonog> virginie: adding NUMS curves to the main spec is not something that we can agree on
20:54:58 <markw> q+
20:55:13 <wseltzer> ack markw
20:55:14 <harry> I mean, it is rather important to determine if -0.5 means "I can live with but am unhappy"
20:55:50 <kodonog> markw: it seems possible that we won't get consensus on the mailing... if there is no consensus to make a change, then the spec stays the same
20:55:51 <wseltzer> q+
20:55:58 <kodonog> virginie: that is my understanding as well
20:56:20 <harry> You can backoff to votes in exceptional circumstance: http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#Votes
20:56:35 <kodonog> wseltzer: that could be a way of the working group making a decision, would the Director agree that this was a reasonable way of making the decision
20:57:12 <kodonog> virginie: if we can't get consensus we will have to raise the issue to the comments, and then the Director will decide
20:57:51 <kodonog> wseltzer: for all comments, we have to go back to the commenter and ask if that satisfies the commenter
20:58:41 <kodonog> harry: we don't want to do voting, but sometimes we have to, and if people aren't happy with the voting, there is a formal objection process
20:59:21 <harry> Alot depends on how long CR takes.
20:59:32 <kodonog> virginie: another option is delaying our roadmap by six months to allow maturity
20:59:34 <rbarnes> i would object to another 6mo delay
20:59:42 <markw> No, more delay will not make everyone happy!
20:59:59 <markw> Pulling out all the EC would be better
21:00:00 <harry> We could start working on the test-cases regardless of CR and LC, but I'd prefer to go into CR as well.
21:00:01 <rbarnes> we'll see!
21:00:09 <harry> That's why I proposed "feature at risk" for the non-NIST option
21:00:28 <rbarnes> i would totally +1 to adding a deliverable for non-NIST
21:00:35 <rbarnes> just on a different timeline
21:00:56 <kodonog> virginie: we might have another call in two weeks because I would really like to see progress
21:01:02 <harry> Whether or not timelines sync up is hard to tell at this stage in terms of how messy the test-suite will be and how TLS/CRFG discussion goes.
21:01:16 <selfissued> I agree we should have another call and keep trying to make these decisions until they're decided
21:01:22 <markw> I think that (new deliverable) would be a good idea - we can develop that whilst still keeping open the option of later integration into the main specification
21:01:32 <harry> When should we do the next call?
21:01:43 <Zakim> -Matt_Wood
21:02:03 <wseltzer> [25 August, Virginie proposes for next call]
21:02:05 <harry> August 25th
21:02:11 <virginie> august 25th
21:02:22 <kodonog> virginie: next call 25 aug at the same time
21:02:50 <harry> trackbot, end meeting
21:02:50 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:02:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wendy, JYates, virginie, BAL, markw, [Microsoft], +1.503.712.aaaa, selfissued, Matt_Wood, hhalpin, karen_oDonoghue, vgb, nvdbleek_, rbarnes
21:02:53 <Zakim> -markw
21:02:53 <Zakim> -JYates
21:02:54 <Zakim> -rbarnes
21:02:54 <Zakim> -vgb
21:02:55 <Zakim> -selfissued
21:02:57 <Zakim> -karen_oDonoghue
21:02:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:02:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/11-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
21:02:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:02:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
21:02:59 <virginie> thanks karen for scribing !
21:03:00 <Zakim> -Wendy