XML
Security Spec Maintenance WG
22 May 2007
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
EdSimon, Thomas, +1.617.876.aaaa, sean, Hal_Lockhart,
+1.410.695.aabb, rmiller3, GregWhitehead, R_Salz, jcc, PHB, [IBMCambridge],
klanz2
Regrets
FrederickHirsch, GilesHogben, AlekseySanin, PeterLipp
Chair
tlr
Scribe
phb
Contents
·
Topics
5.
Status of drafts: C14N11 (from XML Core)
6.
Status of drafts: DSig Core
<tlr> Date: 22 May 2007
<tlr> scribe: phb
<tlr> agendum 2=last
meeting's minutes
<tlr> agendum 3= action
item review
<tlr> hi greg
<grw> hi
<tlr> interesting
<tlr> ScribeNick: hal
convene, administrivia
last meeting's minutes
resolution: next meeting May 29
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/15-xmlsec-minutes
resolution: minutes accepted
action item review
<tlr> ACTION-5 closed
<trackbot-ng> Sorry... I don't
know how to close ACTION yet
<tlr> ACTION-6 continued;
Konrad absent
<tlr> ACTION-22 done
<tlr> ACTION-26 continue
workshop planning
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/ws/cfp.html
<jcc> q
jcc: noticed
typo what would be the limits on number of people from each org?
tlr: if
we have excessive numbers we will limit attendance... standard escape hatch hope
to close cfp as soon as possible final closure in 2 weeks
<scribe> ScribeNick: PHB2
ACTION: hal
to propose additional types of contributions for workshop CFP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created
ACTION-28 - Propose additional types of contributions for workshop CFP [on Hal
Lockhart - due 2007-05-29].
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40279/workshop-timing/results
Tlr: Timeline for the workshop, form open, Sept 25-27
days where no known conflicts aim for that
proposal 25,26 Tues and Wed
(no objections)
jcc: : may be an issue regarding availability of hotels
Thomas: ok don't do catalonia Do meeting of follow-up group Keep offer in grateful
consideration for the followup work sometime next year
Thomas: should we do east or west coast? takeup Hal's offer
Hal: given likely number of participants, any likely issues?
Thomas: given number of attewndees (40+) consider AV support
<tlr>
ACTION:
thomas to go through hosting requirements with Hal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-29 - Go
through hosting requirements with Hal [on Thomas Roessler - due 2007-05-29].
Thomas: next steps need to discuss chair, have candidates, need approval from W3C
management
Thomas: Once approved everyone must send in a position paper (inc. members) Participation
is open to broad community, not just W3C
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to propose detailed
timeline for CFP by mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-30 -
Propose detailed timeline for CFP by mail [on Thomas Roessler - due
2007-05-29].
HAL: Is there a special protocol for members?
Thomas: no everyone must submit a paper
Status of drafts: C14N11 (from XML Core)
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0028.html
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2007May/0040
Thomas: status of CR-Recommendation from XML-Core ... good time to raise issues
EdSimon: In the minutes we said we don't expect to give further feedback to
XMLCore, this is respect to C14N 1.1 item
Thomas: yes, this is the case ... no extensive discussion on 1.1 C18N other issues
are open
Status of drafts: DSig Core
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/
Progress issue, 3 months after CR status and
2 interoperable implementations
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/changes.html
<EdS> c18n should be c14n
Need to walk through draft once more to see
that people are OK with changes that have taken place
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-CoreGeneration
<tlr> The Reference Processing Model
(section 4.3.3.2) requires that validators use Canonical XML 1.0 [XML-C14N]
when a transformation that would expect an octet-stream as input is applied to
a node-set. We RECOMMEND that generators do not rely on this default behavior,
but explicitly identify the transformation that is applied to perform this
mapping. In cases in which inclusive canonicalization is desired, we RECOMMEND
that Canonical XML 1.1 [XML-C14N11] be used.
jcc: if an operation is applied on the input, it is not applied to the node
set,
thomas: replace applied to a node set with better wording
<tlr> "is applied to
a node-set" -> "would be applied to a nodeset"?
<tlr> The Reference
Processing Model (section 4.3.3.2) requires that validators use Canonical XML
1.0 [XML-C14N] when a transformation that would expect an octet-stream as input
is applied to a node-set.
Thomas: can everyone live with that
<tlr> The Reference
Processing Model (section 4.3.3.2) requires that validators use Canonical XML
1.0 [XML-C14N] when a transformation that would expect an octet-stream as input
+++ WOULD BE +++ applied to a node-set.
Thomas: the point being that the transformation
cannot be applied to the node set
<jcc> would expecte an
octet-stream as input receives a node-set
jcc: not quite
Thomas: propose wordsmithing change to the mailing list.
Thomas is the normative intent of this change
acceptable?
<tlr> ACTION: jcc to propose rewording of
"Reference processing model" sentence on mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry,
couldn't find user - jcc
<tlr>
ACTION:
juan-carlos to propose rewording of "Reference processing model"
sentence on mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry,
couldn't find user - juan-carlos
<tlr>
ACTION:
cruellas to propose rewording of "Reference processing model"
sentence on mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-31
- Propose rewording of \"Reference processing model\" sentence on
mailing list [on Juan Carlos Cruellas - due 2007-05-29].
<tlr> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: normative changes in 3.1.1
agreed
sean: first time validator and generator used in text, should be defined?
Thomas (explains terms)
sean: fine with the terms, just should we put in a definitio
hal: hard to see how can have a recomendation without an actor, will someone
take a recomendation?
Thomas: sean will you volunteer?
Sean: give it a shot
<tlr> ACTION: sean to propose language for
"validator" and "generator" that is more in line with rest
of rec's style [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng> Created
ACTION-32 - Propose language for \"validator\" and
\"generator\" that is more in line with rest of rec\'s style [on Sean
Mullan - due 2007-05-29].
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-RetrievalMethod
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0006.html
<tlr> "For example, a reference
that results in the digesting of an |Object| element containing a
|SignatureProperties| element is still of type |#Object|"
thomas: current languahge in 4.4.3
<klanz2> sorry for being
late
thomas: proposal from greg whitehead to add above
<tlr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0011.html
red text agreed in cambridge, greg proposes
adding text
hal: makes it a lot clearer nothing like a good for example
Thomas: propose accepting change
(confusion as to where we are)
Proposal is to change 4.3.3.1
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-URI
Greg: proposal was to change text, was refining JCC's proposal
<tlr> PROPOSED change: "For
example, a reference that identifies an Object element containing a
SignatureProperties element is still of type #Object." -> "For
example, a reference that results in the digesting of an |Object| element
containing a |SignatureProperties| element is still of type |#Object|"
<tlr> RESOLUTION: proposed edit from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007May/0011.html
Thomas: test case, any news?
Question about 19
Konrad: havent done up to now, should not be too hard should be done today
<tlr> ACTION-19 hopefully
closed today
<tlr> E01 remains
unresolved
Thomas:
Changes to e05 agreed? As are ?? changes to the schema confirming proposed
normative changes
jcc: issue with the change
thomas: its a browser issue will change the
formatting to make it readable
<tlr> ACTION: thomas to change formatting of
4.4.3 note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot-ng>
Created ACTION-33 - Change formatting of 4.4.3 note [on Thomas Roessler - due
2007-05-29].
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-c14nAlg
thomas: c14n algorithms
<tlr> This specification REQUIRES
implementation of both Canonical XML 1.0 [XML-C14N] and Canonical XML 1.1
[XML-C14N11]. We RECOMMEND that generators chose Canonical XML 1.1 [XML-C14N11]
when inclusive canonicalizatoin is desired.
people please review and approve this text
<tlr> sean: fix canonicalizatoin
to canonicalization!
jcc: query resolution
thomas: clarify
... 6.5.2, (describe changes)
... identifiers left open for now renew identifier proposed for last call or
come up with a new one if the text changes may need new identifier, otherwise
reuse old one
<tlr>
ACTION:
konrad to verify that CR version of C14N11 has no conformance-affecting changes
against http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220/
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot-ng>
Created ACTION-34 - Verify that CR version of C14N11 has no
conformance-affecting changes against http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220/
[on Konrad Lanz - due 2007-05-29].
jcc: request clarification
thomas: describe changes to note in 6.5.2, grammar changes only
<tlr> ed simon: move note
above 6.5.1
<tlr> so resolved
<tlr> http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-c14nAlg
<tlr> Note: The Reference
Generation Model (section 3.1.1) includes further restrictions on the reliance
of implicitly defined default transformations by signature generators.
<tlr> of -> upon
<klanz2> btw. : CR http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/05/CR-xml-c14n11-20070509
Thomas: ok everyone? nobody objects? ... done with the agenda
adjorned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION:
cruellas to propose rewording of "Reference processing model"
sentence on mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: hal to propose
additional types of contributions for workshop CFP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jcc to propose
rewording of "Reference processing model" sentence on mailing list
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: juan-carlos to
propose rewording of "Reference processing model" sentence on mailing
list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: konrad to
verify that CR version of C14N11 has no conformance-affecting changes against http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20061220/
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: sean to
propose language for "validator" and "generator" that is
more in line with rest of rec's style [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: thomas to change
formatting of 4.4.3 note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: thomas to go
through hosting requirements with Hal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: thomas to
propose detailed timeline for CFP by mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/22-xmlsec-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
$Date: 2007/05/23 19:55:52 $