IRC log of webauthn on 2016-03-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webauthn
16:57:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:57:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webauthn
16:57:42 [hhalpin]
anyone want to scribe? :)
16:57:51 [hhalpin]
Zakim, pick a victim
16:57:52 [Zakim]
I don't who is present, hhalpin
16:58:34 [jcj_moz]
present+ jcj_moz
16:59:19 [hhalpin]
present+ hhalpin
17:00:33 [hhalpin]
present+ selfissued
17:00:34 [felipe_bbg]
felipe_bbg has joined #webauthn
17:00:45 [wseltzer]
trackbot, start teleconf
17:01:45 [hhalpin]
present+ paul_grassi
17:01:46 [wseltzer]
zakim, this is webauthn, 647 951 360
17:01:46 [Zakim]
got it, wseltzer
17:02:02 [hhalpin]
present+ JeffH
17:02:02 [wseltzer]
zakim, this is webauthn, +1.617.324.0000 code 647 951 360
17:02:02 [Zakim]
got it, wseltzer
17:02:18 [RobTrace]
RobTrace has joined #webauthn
17:04:51 [alexei-goog]
alexei-goog has joined #webauthn
17:04:57 [hhalpin]
present+ RobTrace
17:05:01 [hhalpin]
Zakim, pick a victim
17:05:01 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jcj_moz
17:05:27 [hhalpin]
chair: Nadalin
17:05:31 [hhalpin]
scribe: jcJ_moz
17:05:47 [hhalpin]
topic: Roll Call
17:05:50 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who's present?
17:05:50 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, hhalpin.
17:06:15 [hhalpin]
anyone in IRC?
17:06:34 [alexei-goog]
17:06:36 [felipe_bbg]
17:06:42 [jcj_moz]
hhalpin: We're sure nadalin will re-emerge shortly.
17:06:52 [jcj_moz]
... [goes though the agenda]
17:06:57 [mirko]
mirko has joined #webauthn
17:07:05 [apowers]
apowers has joined #webauthn
17:07:12 [alexei-goog]
go to webauthn
17:07:41 [hhalpin]
topic: Document merge (Mike Jones)
17:07:50 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: While flying, had ample time to review the document paragraph by paragraph
17:08:00 [vgb]
vgb has joined #webauthn
17:08:08 [PaulG]
PaulG has joined #webauthn
17:08:11 [jcj_moz]
... and did reach the conclusion that all normative content was correctly included
17:08:28 [jcj_moz]
... and that the logical merge was sensible rather than a concatenation, so it's OK to delete the old copies
17:08:38 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: OK, thanks for look at that, Mike
17:08:56 [jcj_moz]
... So that gets us through the PR doc merge
17:09:01 [jcj_moz]
... is Dirk here?
17:09:14 [jcj_moz]
vijay: He's not here, but what needs to happen next is a PR to remove the old documents
17:09:31 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Please take that action item, vijay
17:09:51 [rolf]
17:10:04 [jcj_moz]
... Mike, you're OK with the content, but you're now going to look at it from an editorial standpoint?
17:10:09 [vgb]
present+ vgb
17:10:20 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: Yes, but wanted to unblock the WG first
17:10:50 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Yes, that gets us to where we can start to edit the document now. Do you have a timeline ... we're shooting for May for a first public draft
17:11:04 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: I expect to be able to do that [review] by the end of IETF
17:11:26 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: I appreciate you taking care of this [mikejones]
17:11:34 [jcj_moz]
... So that gets us through the PR from Dirk
17:11:40 [jcj_moz]
... and we'll get another for deleting the subdirs
17:11:50 [jcj_moz]
... and that gets us to the naming updates
17:11:51 [apowers]
present+ apowers
17:13:35 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: The PR for the Nomenclature is updated w/ vijay's and jeffh's comments
17:13:42 [jcj_moz]
vijay: Didn't see the update
17:14:34 [jcj_moz]
hhalpin: we'll test it here
17:14:38 [vgb]
jcj_moz: was updated this morning. also have a few other editorial changes, it's a big PR so wait for it before doing editorial review
17:15:16 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: When is the PR for nomenclature to land?
17:16:07 [jcj_moz]
present+ jeffh
17:17:09 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: Would like to merge the TravisCI PR (54) soon to eliminate the spurious red x's
17:17:33 [jcj_moz]
... and also we have the simple PR from wseltzer #49 to fix the license
17:18:07 [jcj_moz]
jeffh: I've joined
17:18:28 [jcj_moz]
... I'm missing context in terms of what use of the name we're talking about
17:18:37 [jcj_moz]
... if it's just a reference, it's no big deal
17:18:44 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: We just want to make sure that FIDO is okay with references
17:18:52 [jcj_moz]
jeffh: I don't think we need to check for that
17:19:31 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: OK, we have some open issues; there are 49 issues in Github now.
17:19:49 [hhalpin]
FYI, the webhook for githubn notifications has been open and should be working, sending test messages to list
17:19:53 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: I went in this morning and added a couple ffrom TAG feedback which we should address at some point. We should set up some time with the TAG to go through the whole thing again
17:20:13 [jcj_moz]
... the eTLD+1 was the big conceptual item, but I'm sure there were others
17:20:41 [jcj_moz]
... That's something I'm planning to look at over the next couple weeks, to see how much the TAG feedback we can address so we can go back to the TAG and say 'here's an updated spec, can you look at it?'
17:20:50 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Can you assign these to yourself, so someone is working on it?
17:20:54 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: OK
17:21:15 [jcj_moz]
... Can do in the next couple weeks
17:21:22 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: We'll have to address the TAG feedback before the public release
17:21:55 [jcj_moz]
... So you'll take on the issues for the TAG review comments, and you'll assign yourself ones you opened?
17:21:58 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: Yes
17:22:39 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: And we can help coordination to get back on the TAG's agenda. They meet weekly, and they have a f2f in London this week, and I chatted with them about these issues
17:22:49 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: OK, so we should shoot for a couple weeks, maybe 3 weeks from now
17:23:03 [jcj_moz]
... which will be close to the Plenary timeframe, but we should resolve the issues here
17:23:31 [jcj_moz]
... Jeff, did you go back and assign the ones you opened back to yourself?
17:23:35 [jcj_moz]
jeffh: No
17:23:40 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: OK, can you do that?
17:23:48 [jcj_moz]
... and the same with J.C.
17:24:01 [jcj_moz]
jeffh: OK
17:24:04 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: Yes
17:24:13 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: wseltzer, you're good to go on the license, right?
17:24:20 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: Yes, and I put in a PR
17:24:24 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: OK, so we'll review that
17:25:58 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Jeff, will you take care of the examples? I guess with the names?
17:26:14 [jcj_moz]
Jeffh: Sure
17:26:23 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: There's already a PR for that, #57, opened last night
17:26:26 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: I see
17:27:14 [wseltzer]
17:27:45 [wseltzer]
17:29:42 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: So we can merge the PRs for the License and the TravisCI work can merge during or after the call
17:30:02 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: Those are editorial changes, so don't need the whole WG's call for consensys
17:30:14 [wseltzer]
17:30:32 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: We should set up some milestones in here for the first public draft
17:31:10 [jcj_moz]
jeffh: It's really easy to make a milestone
17:31:19 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: I'll take that action
17:31:25 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: Thanks Tony
17:31:35 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: So I'll try to tag the minimal that we want to get done now that the merge is done
17:32:08 [jcj_moz]
... Is Adam on the phone?
17:32:18 [jcj_moz]
apowers: Yes
17:32:31 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: There's an issue about unspecified error conditions, can you assign this to yourself?
17:32:38 [jcj_moz]
apowers: Sure, but I don't know how to resolve it
17:32:45 [jcj_moz]
vijay: I'll take a first pass
17:33:07 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Did we have an owner for the terminology section?
17:33:10 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz: Yes, me
17:33:20 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Yes, I see you're assigned
17:33:38 [jcj_moz]
... That's all I saw in the open issues that puzzled me
17:33:46 [jcj_moz]
... Does anyone else have any questions on open issues?
17:34:24 [wseltzer]
17:36:09 [jcj_moz]
... I want to get these assigned so we know who's working on them; who we can chase after to get things closed out
17:36:29 [jcj_moz]
... And I'll create the first milestone to get that done
17:36:39 [jcj_moz]
ack wseltzer
17:37:20 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: The point of the public draft is to have all the issues identified, not necessarily resolved
17:37:25 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: agreed
17:37:54 [jcj_moz]
... That's all I had on the open issues today. Does anyone want to discuss any particular aspect of an open issue right now?
17:38:28 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: So we'll get all the open issues assigned and track them
17:38:35 [jcj_moz]
... Does anyone else have other things they want to discuss?
17:39:05 [jcj_moz]
mikejones: We were going to determine whether we wanted to meet at TPAC
17:39:19 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: I did submit a request to have a session during TPAC so we're covered
17:39:27 [jcj_moz]
hhalpin: We have to have an answer in 2 weeks
17:39:31 [wseltzer]
17:39:31 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: How many people would attend?
17:39:40 [jcj_moz]
... How many would attend?
17:39:49 [rolf]
where and when is the TPAC meeting?
17:39:55 [jcj_moz]
... Is there anybody that would not attend; this would be the Plenary in Lisbon in Sept?
17:40:03 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: 19-23 Sept in Lisbon
17:40:10 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Vijay could you attend?
17:40:23 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: Probably but it's too far out. I don't know of any blockers. When is the FIDO one?
17:40:33 [jcj_moz]
alexei-goog: Beginning of October in Hong Kong
17:41:12 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: A note about TPAC: We typically have both a plenary day in the middle, and WG meetings and W3C tries to get as many groups as can together in the same place, which causes annoying conflicts but also opportunities to meet other groups like TAG or WebAppSec
17:41:22 [jcj_moz]
... so if there are coordination questions it's a useful opportunity as well
17:41:55 [jcj_moz]
Vijay: Those would be the 2 big things for TPAC. Another session with the TAG, and secondly align with credential management in webappsec
17:41:59 [wseltzer]
17:42:15 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: Is there a list of groups that have submitted for WG meetings at TPAC?
17:42:25 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: Yes, there is someplace. Let me see if I can find it
17:42:43 [jcj_moz]
hhalpin: Usually the goal is to avoid conflicts
17:42:50 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: I just want to be sure WebAppSec is meeting
17:43:03 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: They've talked about meeting but need to ensure the chairs filled out the forms as well
17:43:17 [jcj_moz]
... and there's an option in the form to say which groups you don't want to conflict with
17:43:31 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: So our form is in, and I put down webappsec, so we want them to make it useful
17:43:39 [jcj_moz]
wseltzer: I'll remind them, and privacy is meeting
17:44:07 [jcj_moz]
... Yeah, Brad just asked the WebAppSec group whether folks have a preference for beginning or end of TPAC week, indicating he's planning to submit for a meeting there
17:45:23 [hhalpin]
WebEx should work over IP
17:45:29 [hhalpin]
if you can get the Java client running
17:45:41 [jcj_moz]
Nadalin: If there's nothing else, I'd like to adjourn the meeting
18:13:03 [nicolagreco]
nicolagreco has joined #webauthn
18:38:41 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
18:41:44 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
18:44:44 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:00:26 [rbarnes]
rbarnes has left #webauthn
19:09:09 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:12:08 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:16:59 [nicolagreco]
nicolagreco has joined #webauthn
19:21:11 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:21:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wseltzer
19:21:20 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:21:21 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:21:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wseltzer
19:31:26 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:34:21 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:42:46 [nicolagreco_]
nicolagreco_ has joined #webauthn
19:44:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webauthn
20:11:51 [jcj_moz]
jcj_moz has joined #webauthn
23:24:54 [mirko]
mirko has joined #webauthn