[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] wss-minutes June 17th
attendance info inserted
--
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:41 AM
To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wss] wss-minutes June 17th
WSS-TC
Attendance of voting members:
Gene Thurston AmberPoint
Frank Siebenlist Argonne National Lab
Merlin Hughes Baltimore Technologies
Irving Reid Baltimore Technologies
Peter Dapkus BEA
Hal Lockhart BEA
Symon Chang CommerceOne
Thomas DeMartini ContentGuard
Guillermo Lao ContentGuard
TJ Pannu ContentGuard
John Hughes Entegrity
Tim Moses Entrust
Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu
Jason Rouault HP
Yutaka Kudo Hitachi
Maryann Hondo IBM
Kelvin Lawrence IBM
Anthony Nadalin IBM
Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM
Bob Morgan Individual
Paul Cotton Microsoft
Chris Kaler Microsoft
Frederick Hirsch Nokia
Senthil Sengodan Nokia
Lloyd Burch Novell
Charles Knouse Oblix
Steve Anderson OpenNetwork
Vipin Samar Oracle
Jerry Schwarz Oracle
Eric Gravengaard Reactivity
Peter Rostin RSA Security
Martijn de Boer SAP
Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond
Ronald Monzillo Sun Microsystems
Jan Alexander Systinet
John Weiland US Navy
Phillip Hallam-Baker VeriSign
33 voting members sufficient for quorum
minutes review:
kelvin to steve......consolidated minutes in one file but date still
says Wed.
jerry, add to attendance
minutes approved
at the F2F several actions were taken:
editorial actions (captured in the minutes from F2F) from F2F
Chris K, suggestion to translate those into issues
Hal, clarification of the action item.....the shoulds/must comment is
really .....how you determine to do multiple signatures &
encryptions....at the end the agreement was for Tony to investigate the
issue and report back
Chris, be the point person to coordinate the next interop....only
received one name....needs a point person for virtual testing [private
email off the list]
Chris/Kelvin, which approach should be taken to identifying all the
editors and contributors (SAML and XACML each had different mechanisms)
Tim posted the XACML, please look at both models and vote for a
preference
Text on reporting faults....should be an action......some discussion on
whether or not faults are optional....Hal ...text is nonspecific in SOAP
specs.... it says the fault must be "generated" but not necessarily
returned. [long debate at the f2f and this will be an issue to track]
Merlin, some discussion on whether he posted text to list[transforms]
for his action from f2f ......Comment, Ron- Merlin did NOT post anything
Document status [issues list review]:
11-closed
30- pending.....waiting for next draft
31-pending....have a namespace until OASIS comes through with theirs
62-pending -- no change
67- pending--- no change
69- pending---no change
70-pending-- no change
72-pending --resolutions from f2f waiting for next draft
74-pending-- Hal proposed text
76-80 pending ---Tim review latest draft & sent comments....Tim & Phil
have a common draft that resolves his issues, so that they can deliver
the next draft of the profile.....hope to close by end of the week
82-open---Kelvin --note of cleaning up before going to standard
84-open ---encryption transform...status is that Tony is to propose
text (see bullet 2)
86- defer till after v1
90- pending - clarification of embedded---waiting for editorial update
from f2f
94-pending....related to 101
95-pending....clarify what ids are used----editorial update
96,97,98-pending --waiting for editorial
99 -open ..hal- it might be useful to know what key identifier
scheme[encoding type] is being used....proposal ...in STR, value type
for key identifier should refer to key itself ....currently its a
hint.....it might imply a token type.... either define a separate type
(x509-1, x509-2)....scheme expressed in some form, as opposed to just
X509 key identifier....jerry, isn't the qname pointing to a profile?
chris, we could add text that it could identify a different class....
Ron- make a corresponding change to a direct reference[ some
discussion ]
Tim, don't need to use those references ....
Jerry, you need to know what it points to
Merlin, additional comments {sorry!}
ACTION- move to pending...Hal to propose text [two things , some
text for document, summarize some of the other issues]
100- closed, mail sent
101-open-move to pending-, the way the sig structure works, the
reference is outside the signature...this could be a hole for
non-repudiation ,
merlin- signature just relates to the key ...
chris- there are some certs that can have additional constructs
hal- if you want to rely on a signature you need to know what
certificate
chris- propose adding paragraph to security considerations section
hal, also need to touch area where we make recommendations, there's
no crypto binding between cert and signed data and this should be
addressed
jerry, is this an issue for the X509 profile?
tim, is this a non-repudiation issue? and it relates more to the X509
profile
chris, we do need to add some text to security considerations
ACTION---chris to work with hal
102- pending, remove section
Merlin, mandating processing order does nothing
ACTION- editors remove
103-pending
value type optional....if you have no value type its unclear what you
could do with it
you can look at content type, but it should be recommended to provide
a value type
two issues....one for BST and one for reference
ACTION: chris....change text required on BST, recommended on
reference
104- pending
ACTION:Merlin to get text to editors
105-closed
Merlin- to get text to Hal, ordering for signature & encryption,
email already started
106-pending
Eric- there was an action to take out section 9.3 on attachment at
f2f
ACTION: Chris to do update
Jerry -would like a reply to his posting on issue 73
Kelvin, when can we expect updated drafts?
two issues across the docs:
profiles describe how key identifiers apply
xml notation syntax, only defined in core, other profiles should
point to it
Ron-done
Tim- goal is 20th
Tony- shoot for 23rd
shot at committee spec by end of month
Chris & Kelvin:
followup interop
message #93 on the 16th, 3 things to be there, sig transform, timestamps,
ordering
Hal volunteered to try to pull this together-Chris to put forward a
proposal
signature & encryption in a different order....
is 5 to test expiration? seems more like conformance, than interop
what is the intent?
chris, propose to drop 5 and modify 7 includes timestamp...fold C into 7 as
well (encrypt before sign)
Chris & Hal to gen up scenarios....
post a rough outline
get agreement,
then work out the details
try to have a parallel path, work on the docs, do another interop
Any other business?
Chris---Any blocking issues for moving forward on 7/1?
need a hard date for new v1 issues....can it be this Friday?
do we need a special call?
another call next week might be an issue for folks who need to attend WS-I.
we have a round of specs by the 23rd,
we have a two week period to resolve any issues and re-rev the specs by
email
call on the 1st
the vote will be by kavi
please monitor email
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]