Rob to scribe

<hhalpin> RRSAgent

Testing Status: hhalpin

Various expressions of interest on implementing tests. conflict of time for the meeting.

Attempting to schedule a training for implementing tests.

Ryan Hurst moving to Google, no longer able to contribute testings

Jim: has submitted a pull request for tests. Interested in contrubuting.

March 14th 8:00am PST training.

Do not forget daylight savings time on March 13th

After training, we can then create a plan for dividing up the work.

<scribe> ACTION: send an invitation to training. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/07-crypto-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/users>.

<hhalpin> ACTION: hhalpin to send out invite for testing, try 8:00 AM March [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/07-crypto-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Send out invite for testing, try 8:00 am march [on Harry Halpin - due 2016-03-14].

Ask: share implementation roadmaps

Firefox: implemented all algorithsms that they plan to support

Missing pieces, PCKS8 support for ecdsa

<hhalpin> CONCAT? Which algorithms do you not plan to implement?

<jimsch> CONCAT has been removed from the current spec

<ttaubert> CONCAT, AES-CMAC, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5, AES-CFB

<hhalpin> and PKCS8 support for ECDH

<ttaubert> (EC)DH

On workers, Planning on implementing, there are still some places where spec is not clear.

Bi-weekly is OK for Mozilla.

<hhalpin> +1 Jim's suggestion to use IETF HKDF

<jimsch> Which IETF or the NIST version of HKDF.

<hhalpin> We need to fix the reference in the spec to match the IETF spec

<jimsch> I can create a pull request for this

<hhalpin> I think Jim already opened this bug

HKDF implemented to IETF specification

<hhalpin> but a pull request on spec is good

<jimsch> THis is bug 27425

<ttaubert> can I contribute to the spec by creating PRs and markw merging them?

Microsoft: question on current specification standardization and algorithm support.

<virginie> harry : suggest that we remove the algorithms from the spec to park them in a Note, in case it is implemented later

The process for WebCrypto would be to move algorithms that do not have 2 implementations will be moved to optional.

Looking to get a snapshot of document that does not change. then enter a edited candidate phase for changing spec.

requirement is to mark what is inter-operable and what is not. Do not want to lose text, just make a declaration about what needs to work.

Microsoft; we do not have a roadmap out past 12 months. it is open what will be implemetned in the long term.

Come back in 2 weeks to discuss what is not implemented and may be moved to optional.

There is pressure to deliver something. Asked for 6 month extension, but need to deliver final spec to ecosystem

Need a tool to replace bugzilla for tracking interoperability / spec bugs.

<virginie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2016Mar/0005.html

<hhalpin> +1 jim again

<hhalpin> Have MarkW look through, then migrate remaining open bugs to github issues

Does Mark have time to work on the management of bugs issues? Answer: yes

Questions on Rec process have been answered in previous discussion.

<jimsch> MarkW? When do you think you will have a chance to look at the current set of spec pull requests?

Next call is in 2 weeks. Will look for update on implementation and recommendations for dropping features.

<hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting

<hhalpin> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 07 March 2016

<hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting