← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
WSS-Minutes 12/2
Attendance of Voting Members Gene Thurston AmberPoint Frank Siebenlist Argonne National Lab Merlin Hughes Baltimore Technologies Peter Dapkus BEA Symon Chang CommerceOne Thomas DeMartini ContentGuard Guillermo Lao ContentGuard TJ Pannu ContentGuard Sam Wei Documentum John Hughes Entegrity Tim Moses Entrust Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu Kefeng Chen GeoTrust Irving Reid HP Jason Rouault HP Yutaka Kudo Hitachi Derek Fu IBM Kelvin Lawrence IBM Anthony Nadalin IBM Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM Don Flinn Individual Bob Morgan Individual Paul Cotton Microsoft Chris Kaler Microsoft Ellen McDermott Microsoft John Shewchuk Microsoft Prateek Mishra Netegrity Frederick Hirsch Nokia Lloyd Burch Novell Ed Reed Novell Charles Knouse Oblix Steve Anderson OpenNetwork Vipin Samar Oracle Eric Gravengaard Reactivity Rob Philpott RSA Security Blake Dournaee Sarvega Coumara Radja Sarvega Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond Jonathan Tourzan Sony Yassir Elley Sun Microsystems Jeff Hodges Sun Microsystems Attendance of Prospective Members Davanum Srinivas CA Paula Austel IBM Maryann Hondo IBM Ben Hammond RSA Security Kevin Lewis Documentum Membership Status Changes Maryann Hondo IBM - Requested membership 11/26/2003 Ben Hammond RSA Security - Requested membership 12/1/2003 David Orchard BEA Systems - Requested membership 12/1/2003 Kevin Lewis Documentum - Requested membership 12/1/2003 Davanum Srinivas CA - Granted voting status after 12/2/2003 call Senthil Sengodan Nokia - Lost voting status after 12/2/2003 call Quorum achieved. Any objections to the minutes? <none> taken as approved Update from the editors: Ron .....<not here> update soon Tony.... had a hard drive crash the Friday before Thanksgiving.....trying to recover ....about 2 1/ weeks behind in recovering edits.... will need Ron and Chris to help out...... predicts a week and a half .... will try to get it out before the next meeting Other documents? Phil? ....<not on the call> Chris....colllecting issues, username/password being worked on by Tony Kelvin: After the namespace issue discussion there will be minor changes needed in the documents... Issues List review: Namespace Proposal #135, & #31 Kelvin, Are there questions on the proposal? Mail from Eve to indicate that we may not need the ### ...... Kelvin to follow up with the staff to see if we need to do this Tony, if they then require the ###, how to we adapt when it gets put in place? Can we be exempt if we go ahead without it? Rob Is there a reference to the message for this? Kelvin: It was sent yesterday...[wss] File and namespace naming proposal Paul: I'm confused about the namespaces and the filenames..... do each of the documents have a namespace, the template that's given ends in <docname> Chris I think you are reading too much into "namespace"...are you asking about schema namespaces? how do you define namespace? Paul: something that's defined by the namespaces spec Chris the section on namespaces I interpreted as URL's ....where Kelvin has "namespace" read it as URL.... Paul is thinking namespace as in schema.... Paul in the last sentence......that;s what you usually do for a namespace document Chris Paul, how should this be worded....we want some human readable way to locate the document and schema.... Paul I was confused by the use of "namespace"....let me ask..when I look in the xsd and I look at the target namespace what will I find? Chris in the schema, the namespace equals the URI of the schema Rob..... have we reached resolution that we are going to drop the # sign? Frederick we could use a number....reserve a number Tony this might not work if there is no scheme set up for numbering ACTION: Kelvin to resolve #169 pending Chris: I thought we resolved this on the last call? yes, and we had unanimous agreement to go with Hal's proposal #173 resolved #190 pending [ based on this meeting....Irving to write this up] Chris: Must Understand.....Irving was to write up a proposal.... Irving: I'm struggling with what the "will of the committee" is.....don't have a good sense of this is it .....if you can parse the schema everything is up to your security model? Chris yes this was pretty much it Tony agree <no dissent> #196 qualified names instead of URI's .. Chris, should be marked postponed <end of issues list > _________________________________ two new issues from Merlin 1) X509 references the ds:X509IssuerSerial element, but dsig doesn't expose this as a global element probable to get the team to expose all these top level elements....I'll post to the dsig list to do this.....should be ok without changes to X509 spec 2) the STR transform does not support parameterization... Chris at the last meeting we agreed we would create a new element in the wsse namespace that has the same type as canonicalization Rob, there were 2 proposals in Merlins mail...that's the first Merlin: the second is slightly more general and clumsy...extend with an algorithm parameter (ds:transforms can then have any parameters ) Chris, I'm inclined to do the tactical.... Merlin, some people have issues with our tactical proposal ......not sure its a real problem Chris, should we use the second proposal? ok we'll take that as pending for the editors to do ________________________________________________________ discussion of the other work we have to do..... we need hal for this discussion..... who sent the XRML scenario? TJ I sent that around. Chris has there been any feedback? will you get another version out? TJ yes by next call Chris does anyone know how stable the SAML one is? <no response> Chris when we get Ron's update we should consider an interop on that one Chris what about the XRML profile? Thomas, no comments on the profile Chris, should we do a remote interop Thomas, yes worked well last time Kelvin, on current course & speed we have one more (16th) before the last on the 30th.....suggest not meeting on 30th..... anyone feel otherwise? Paul can we just slip a week instead of waiting 2? Kelvin this seems to cause problems _________________________________________________ Any other business? Don whats the plan for closing out 1.0 Chris plan is to get the docs out and resolve the issues..... Kelvin the only thing we need is to take a week to review the pending changes......and then take a vote to submit for final review...takes about 60 days.... I think in a week and 1/2 we'll have that and we shoud be mostly there Don, by the January meeting are we hoping to have a vote? I'm just trying to push it Kelvin, I'm all in favor of that....chris what do you think....if we put forward the call on the 13th of January? Chris In agreement Kelvin Any disagreement? we'll make this the stake in the ground Paul could you send out a short email with that schedule and what the process is? the vote, etc Kelvin will do
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →