19:38:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #crypto
19:38:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-irc
19:44:56 <wseltzer> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014OctDec/0181.html
19:49:48 <harry> Zakim, what's the code?
19:49:49 <Zakim> the conference code is 27978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
19:59:02 <Zakim> Team_(crypto)20:00Z has now started
19:59:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
19:59:26 <plh> plh has joined #crypto
19:59:27 <wseltzer> zakim, [IPC is me
19:59:27 <Zakim> +wseltzer; got it
19:59:31 <Zakim> +Plh
20:00:25 <virginie> virginie has joined #crypto
20:01:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:01:06 <harry> IPcaller is hhalpin
20:01:13 <harry> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
20:01:13 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
20:01:29 <Karen> Karen has joined #crypto
20:01:50 <wseltzer> scribenick: harry
20:02:21 <Zakim> +Wendy
20:02:34 <Zakim> +Virginie_Galindo
20:02:48 <Zakim> -wseltzer
20:03:34 <wseltzer> [the group expresses regrets that plh is not in France]
20:04:37 <wseltzer> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014OctDec/0181.html
20:04:57 <harry> wselzter: We have the transition request Virginie sent
20:05:00 <harry> ... we can walk through that
20:05:08 <harry> ... we have a proposed URL for the CR
20:05:15 <harry> ... and a provisioned temporary URL
20:05:24 <harry> notes that I will send this out TONIGHT if we get through :)
20:05:32 <harry> otherwise, we have a bit of time next week
20:05:39 <harry> s/TONIGHT/tonight
20:05:51 <harry> plh: For once, I did my homework
20:05:59 <harry> ... I went through the entire transition before this call
20:06:30 <wseltzer> plh: There are no formal objections
20:06:40 <wseltzer> harry: because all the objections raised have been resolved
20:06:41 <harry> plh: notes that we do *not* have formal objections
20:06:48 <harry> ... since they have been resolved
20:07:05 <harry> ... note that the dependencies are not quite right
20:07:16 <harry> ... this is not a blocker for CR
20:07:18 <wseltzer> plh: Disposition of comments looks ok
20:07:23 <harry> ... but it's an early warning re move to PR
20:07:29 <harry> ... the first reference is to DOM
20:07:45 <harry> ... it was in CR, moved back Last Call
20:07:55 <harry> ... so we have some features to adjust
20:07:59 <harry> ... the DOM is a moving target
20:08:04 <harry> ... none of the chages will effect you
20:08:12 <harry> ... if the goal is to reference the W3C DOM
20:08:17 <harry> ... and not do it in CR document
20:08:36 <harry> ... you also have an "editorial document" that this will be updated to W3C DOM4 once "promises" are incorporated
20:08:54 <harry> ... instead, Promises ECMAScript will have them in ECMAScript 6
20:09:01 <harry> ... while you only reference ECMAScript 5
20:09:18 <harry> virginie: Is ECMAScript 6 stable?
20:09:20 <harry> plh: no
20:09:37 <wseltzer> [this was the link PLH shared: https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-25.4 ]
20:09:39 <harry> virginie: Any other group shave this problem?
20:09:55 <harry> plh: It is an early warning that this may be an issue
20:09:56 <harry> ... in PR transition
20:10:03 <harry> ... a little bit of homework may have to be done with PR
20:10:11 <harry> ... re just the "Promises" part of ECMAScript 6
20:10:14 <harry> ... I don't have that info myself
20:10:35 <harry> virginie: Do we have an official rep from W3C?
20:10:38 <plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/
20:10:42 <harry> plh: No, but we have a mailing list
20:10:51 <harry> notes that we did email that list when we moved into Last Call!
20:11:03 <harry> but not over this specific question
20:11:33 <harry> plh: You should ask the questions when they are ready
20:12:14 <harry> ... so we should fix the W3C DOM4
20:12:20 <harry> ... reference and the editorial note
20:12:32 <harry> ... also, update reference to HTML
20:12:53 <harry> ... you are also referencing WebIDL2
20:12:58 <harry> ... its also unstable
20:13:04 <harry> ... there has been discussion to move it out
20:13:24 <harry> ... my recommendation is to stick to syntax to WebIDL but don't normatively spec it
20:13:33 <harry> ... it's a bit of moving target due to ECMAScript
20:13:40 <harry> ... for example, sequences are being redone
20:13:43 <harry> ... just make it clear
20:14:06 <harry> ... not familiar enough with the rest of the references
20:14:20 <harry> ... some of them are "work-in-progress" in IETF
20:14:21 <harry> q+
20:14:25 <plh> Update "HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML (work in progress), I. Hickson. W3C. "
20:14:31 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:14:56 <wseltzer> harry: We refer to 2 kinds of IETF docs, normative and informative
20:15:19 <wseltzer> ... assume we can reference informative docs in-progress as non-normative refs
20:15:29 <wseltzer> plh: just looking at normative refs
20:15:54 <wseltzer> harry: we're coordinating with JOSE, so I believe those are stable
20:16:07 <wseltzer> ... currently in IAB review
20:16:32 <harry> I'll make sure to double-check that before we go to PR
20:17:00 <harry> we did email them all very systematically
20:17:07 <wseltzer> plh: did you get review from WebApps, WebAppSec, HTML?
20:17:08 <harry> reviews came in via bugzilla
20:17:10 <harry> not via WG
20:17:19 <harry> q+
20:17:24 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:17:36 <wseltzer> harry: Virginie emailed request to all the groups
20:17:47 <wseltzer> ... people responded individually in the bugzilla
20:18:16 <wseltzer> plh: I don't see unresolved comments
20:18:23 <harry> plh: Did not see any unsatisfied commenter, all responded to satisfication of reviewer
20:18:45 <harry> notes that reviewer not responding in 2 weeks counted as "satisfaction" in Dispositon of Comments
20:18:53 <harry> plh: Are all the algorithms normative and required for implementation?
20:19:02 <wseltzer> ack Virginie
20:19:12 <harry> virginie: All of them are not required
20:19:16 <harry> ... that was part of the consensus
20:19:21 <harry> ... from the browser vendors
20:19:23 <wseltzer> [not MTI]
20:19:38 <harry> ... but because a high number of people wanted a stable profile of algoritms
20:19:55 <harry> ... so during PR, we will make a "profile" of those that are implemented
20:20:03 <harry> ... but each browser does not have to implement all of them
20:20:20 <harry> plh: they can implement none of them and still be part of the spec
20:20:29 <harry> ... will that profile be part of the specification or not?
20:20:57 <harry> plh: When you implement none of the algorithms, it will be OK
20:21:07 <harry> ... so I would be uncomfortale for not having a profile in spec
20:21:15 <harry> virginie: Happy to help put this into the spec
20:21:18 <harry> q+
20:21:21 <wseltzer> q+
20:21:25 <harry> plh: My recommendation would be to put them into the spec
20:21:40 <harry> ... if at end of CR, you don't have a profile, I will want a rationale about how useful API will be
20:22:15 <harry> ... for CR phase, do you plan tests and 2 implementations for every algorithms?
20:22:28 <harry> virginie: It depends on the browser vendors
20:22:38 <harry> plh: I'm a bit uncomfortable
20:22:44 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:23:09 <wseltzer> harry: this was a protracted discusion in the WG even before LC
20:23:38 <wseltzer> ... editor did not want normative algorithms, as there might be particular custom clients
20:24:09 <wseltzer> ... also some concern about legal restrictions in some jurisdictions
20:24:39 <wseltzer> ... in LC, browser developers suggested they'd like to know what can be relied on on the Web
20:25:05 <wseltzer> ... so for the general-purpose Web, we could build a profile expressing what they support
20:26:33 <wseltzer> q+
20:26:54 <wseltzer> q+
20:27:34 <harry> wseltzer: We are talking not about browser vendors, general purpose Web
20:27:53 <harry> ... that is a profile that would be published alongside the API with docs from web developers pointing to it
20:28:08 <harry> ... along with higher-level constructs
20:28:24 <harry> ... but there woudl still be possibility someone with a very specialized purpose could use the API
20:28:39 <wseltzer> q-
20:28:43 <harry> plh: If we have no impementations that supports all the
20:28:46 <harry> q+
20:28:52 <tantek> tantek has joined #crypto
20:28:57 <harry> ... algorithms in the spec, we do not keep them
20:29:03 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:29:10 <virginie> q+
20:29:30 <wseltzer> harry: originally, we'd expected all algos to be non-normative
20:30:11 <wseltzer> ... but during LC discussion, we mighthave said algos that didn't have 2 interop implementations ould be demoted to extensions
20:30:28 <wseltzer> ... so we'd have test cases
20:31:10 <virginie> note that implementations are already in progress, wee here https://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Main_Page#First_implementations
20:31:14 <virginie> q-
20:32:04 <wseltzer> plh: Features at risk, you're saying that all algos are at-risk
20:32:45 <harry> plh: That note should referenced from status or moved to status
20:32:47 <wseltzer> plh: Editorial note should either be ref'd from status or in the status
20:33:08 <wseltzer> [Note: All algorithms listed should be considered as "features at risk", ]
20:33:15 <harry> We can move that to the top, no problem
20:33:27 <harry> plh: I would like to see it said that we want 2 interoperable implementations
20:33:44 <harry> ... if you don't have it, there may be some arguments
20:33:47 <harry> q+
20:34:00 <harry> plh: It would not appropriate to say "hey we want to move to PR anyways"
20:34:07 <wseltzer> ack harry
20:34:29 <virginie> s/2 interoperable implementations/2 interoperable implementations per algorithm
20:34:51 <wseltzer> harry: there are some algos where we're waiting for more info, CFRG work at IETF
20:35:26 <wseltzer> plh: they're at risk, so you can remove them without going back to LC
20:35:42 <wseltzer> harry: what if we add an EC algo from IETF in TLS
20:35:56 <wseltzer> ... would we have to go back to LC?
20:36:00 <wseltzer> plh: yes
20:36:07 <wseltzer> ... and that could e a short LC
20:36:21 <wseltzer> ... as short as month and a half, you can do LC-> PR
20:36:50 <wseltzer> harry: We agreed we'd move back to LC if TLS WG gave a recommendation before we got out of CR
20:36:58 <wseltzer> ... else, we'd do errata process
20:37:48 <wseltzer> plh: you have a crypto API, no agreement on algos
20:38:01 <wseltzer> ... generally, we'd put into a registry rather than spec itself
20:38:26 <wseltzer> ... like HTML5 video element without a codec specified
20:38:56 <harry> q+
20:38:59 <virginie> q+
20:39:12 <wseltzer> ack virginie
20:39:22 <harry> virginie: We were discussing adding a registry
20:39:33 <harry> ... we did not have a stable profile, the editor wanted no registry
20:39:41 <harry> ... so we have them in the API itself
20:39:49 <harry> ... with chair's hat on
20:39:55 <harry> ... once we have a list of common algorithms
20:40:00 <harry> ... we will know what to do and how to put them in
20:40:38 <harry> plh: Just add this "two implementations if you are OK with it with that", if it doesn't make sense, then please list in exit criteria
20:40:46 <harry> Virginie: I think that's what we wanted to add
20:41:02 <harry> plh: We want to the transition call optional features
20:41:07 <harry> ... out explicitly
20:41:21 <harry> ... we want to have two implementations for optional features, i.e. all the algorithms
20:41:41 <harry> plh: Assuming you are on top of testing
20:41:44 <harry> ... I have no other questions
20:41:57 <harry> wseltzer: Any other questions for plh?
20:42:04 <harry> virginie: For me its clear
20:42:26 <harry> wseltzer: Then unless there are any questions, are we ready to make the WebCrypto transition?
20:42:49 <harry> plh: As the delegate of the Director, I am OK with CR transition with update of reference to DOM and update of exit criteria
20:42:53 <harry> wselzter: Thanks very much congrats!
20:42:53 <wseltzer> Action: hhalpin to update exit criteria, reference to DOM
20:42:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Update exit criteria, reference to dom [on Harry Halpin - due 2014-12-16].
20:43:02 <harry> plh: Oh, and add ECMAScript 6 Promises
20:43:20 <harry> virginie: We would like to thank the editors, they've done a great job
20:43:26 <harry> Agreed, they've done a great job
20:43:36 <harry> plh: Congrats to all for all the work well done
20:43:39 <harry> ... very much appreciated.
20:43:45 <harry> ... we know how painful it can be
20:43:55 <harry> wselzter: It's an exciting move in the security discussions and privacy discussions
20:44:04 <harry> ... its great to be able to be point to WebCrypto as a concrete move
20:44:50 <wseltzer> ACTION hhalpin to notify webmaster of publication request
20:44:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Notify webmaster of publication request [on Harry Halpin - due 2014-12-16].
20:45:17 <harry> ACTION: hhalpin will notify webmaster of publication request and double-check with editors on changes
20:45:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-151 - Will notify webmaster of publication request and double-check with editors on changes [on Harry Halpin - due 2014-12-16].
20:45:26 <harry> plh: Draft director's decision?
20:46:19 <harry> ACTION: hhalpin to make Director's decision, note that WG plans to make the "profile" for browser related to algorithm
20:46:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-152 - Make director's decision, note that wg plans to make the "profile" for browser related to algorithm [on Harry Halpin - due 2014-12-16].
20:46:34 <harry> plh: For interop we need this profile
20:47:24 <harry> wselzter: This decision as a WG during PR
20:47:40 <harry> virginie: Can we stick to initial plan?
20:47:54 <harry> plh: I'm happy to take a look at it but don't block on me
20:48:20 <wseltzer> harry: I'll make the edits tomorrow
20:48:31 <plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2014OctDec/0051.html
20:48:40 <plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2014OctDec/0043.html
20:49:02 <harry> we may of course be delayed if there's any errors the webmaster detects
20:49:27 <harry> wselzter: Let's send it tonight
20:49:32 <harry> Virginie: thanks very much!
20:49:51 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
20:50:11 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
20:50:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
20:50:25 <Zakim> -Virginie_Galindo
20:50:26 <Zakim> -Plh
20:50:28 <Zakim> -Wendy
20:52:35 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make logs public
20:52:53 <wseltzer> Meeting: WebCrypto transition to CR
20:52:57 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
20:52:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-minutes.html wseltzer
20:53:18 <wseltzer> rrsagent, end meeting
20:53:18 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', wseltzer.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:53:26 <wseltzer> trackbot, end meeting
20:53:26 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:53:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been wseltzer, Plh, hhalpin, Wendy, Virginie_Galindo
20:53:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:53:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-minutes.html trackbot
20:53:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:53:35 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-actions.rdf :
20:53:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hhalpin to update exit criteria, reference to DOM [1]
20:53:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-irc#T20-42-53-1
20:53:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hhalpin will notify webmaster of publication request and double-check with editors on changes [2]
20:53:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-irc#T20-45-17
20:53:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hhalpin to make Director's decision, note that WG plans to make the "profile" for browser related to algorithm [3]
20:53:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/09-crypto-irc#T20-46-19