RE: [wss] Minutes of WSS Call 2005-01-11

Thanks for following up.

 

From: Anthony Nadalin
[mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005
2:05 PM

To: Martin Gudgin

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [wss] Minutes of WSS
Call 2005-01-11

 

Issue 347 has been addressed in the 1.1 document that
has been posted

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Martin
Gudgin" <>

 

  
  
"Martin
  Gudgin" <> 

  
01/11/2005 11:04 AM

  
  
  
   

    
    

    
To

    
    
    

    <>

    
   

   

    
    

    
cc

    
    
    

    
   

   

    
    

    
Subject

    
    
    

    [wss] Minutes of
    WSS Call 2005-01-11

    
   

  
  
 

  
   

    
    

    
    
    

    
   

  
  

  
 

Minutes
of WSS Call 2005-01-11. Please send any corrections to the list,

I may not have all the names/affiliations
correct...

Thanks

Gudge

> 1. Call to order, roll call

Steve takes roll and quorom is achieved.

Attendance of Voting Members

 Gene Thurston AmberPoint

 Hal Lockhart BEA

 Corinna Witt BEA

 Thomas DeMartini ContentGuard

 Guillermo Lao ContentGuard

 Merlin Hughes Cybertrust

 Tim Moses Entrust

 Carolina Canales-Valenzuela Ericsson

 Dana Kaufman Forum Systems

 Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu

 Kefeng Chen GeoTrust

 Irving Reid HP

 Kojiro Nakayama Hitachi

 Kelvin Lawrence IBM

 Mike McIntosh IBM

 Anthony Nadalin IBM

 Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM

 Ron Williams IBM

 Kate Cherry Lockheed Martin

 Paul Cotton Microsoft

 Vijay Gajjala Microsoft

 Martin Gudgin Microsoft

 Chris Kaler Microsoft

 Richard Levinson Netegrity

 Jeff Hodges NeuStar

 Frederick Hirsch Nokia

 Abbie Barbir Nortel

 Lloyd Burch Novell

 Steve Anderson OpenNetwork

 Vamsi Motukuru Oracle

 Ramana Turlapati Oracle

 Prateek Mishra Principal Identity

 Ben Hammond RSA Security

 Rob Philpott RSA Security

 Martijn de Boer SAP

 Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond

 Ronald Monzillo Sun Microsystems

 Symon Chang TIBCO

 John Weiland US Navy

 Phillip Hallam-Baker VeriSign

 Maneesh Sahu Westbridge Technology

Attendance of Prospective Members

 Don Flinn Individual

Membership Status Changes

 Irving Reid HP - Returned from LOA before
1/11/2005 call

 Frank Siebenlist Argonne National Lab - Lost
voting status after

1/11/2005 call

 Don Flinn Individual - Granted voting status
after 1/11/2005 call

 Larry Byrns IBM - Lost prospective status
after 1/11/2005 call

> 2. Reading/approving minutes of last meeting
(14th December 2004) [1]

Minutes of 2004-12-14 approved without objection.

> 3. SWA Vote result. When do we want to start
the Public review? [2]

38 yes, 4 abstain, 0 no

2/3 Yes vote, no more than 1/4 no achieved.

SWA profile is approved as a committee draft.

Moved by BEA\Hal that we start public review
immediately.

Seconded by IBM\Tony.

No objection to so starting public review.

Public review will start ASAP.

ACTION: Chris and Kelvin to perform necessary
administrative tasks to

start public review of SWA profile.

Lockheed Martin\Kate: All the abstains were
Microsoft, does anyone from

Microsoft want to make a comment?

Microsoft\Paul: We don't see why anyone should
HAVE to make a comment on

the vote.

IBM\Kelvin: OASIS staff are going to change the
voting tool so that

no/abstain votes can be made without having to
comment.

IBM\Kelvin: Thanks to Frederick et.al. for all
technical and editorial

work on the SWA profile.

> 4. Status of 1.1 documents

IBM\Kelvin: Needs some help from the editors
getting the home page up to

date with links to correct documents. Can editors
give us an update on

where we are with 1.1

IBM\Tony: We need to close some more issues before
we can update the

documents.

> 5. Other document status (SwA,
Kerberos,etc...)

SWA, see section 3.

Microsoft\Gudge: No movement on Kerberos. I will
try to send an updated

document this week.

> 6. Issue list review

Pending issues:

Issue 84. 

BEA\Hal: My recollection was that we agreed to
remove the Decryption

Transform section.

IBM\Tony; That was done, latest document has this
changes

Microsoft\Chris: Issue 84 is closed

Issue 282.

BEA\Hal: Looks OK to me.

Microsoft\Chris: Issue 282 is closed

Issue 330.

Issue 331.

Issue 332.

Microsoft\Chris: Have the changes suggested by 330
been incorporated in

the last update.

IBM\Tony: I believe so, let me check. All have
been posted.

Microsoft\Chris: OK, 330, 331, 332 are closed

Issue 347

IBM\Tony: 

Issue 350

Microsoft\Chris: 350 is closed.

Issue 351/352

BEA\Hal: Proposals were posted before Christmas.
No comments so far.

Microsoft\Vijay: I'm going to send comments this week.

Microsoft\Chris: These two stay as pending.

Open Issues:

Issue 250

Microsoft\Chris: I recall that there was concern
about making such a

change in 1.1

Sun\Ron: Requires a schema change (adding a URI). 

Microsoft\Chris: We have made backward compatible
changes to schema.

Sun\Ron: I believe this change can be made in a
similar fashion. I

thought Chris said we weren't releasing a new
schema.

Microsoft\Chris: I meant we don't want to break
the schema.

Contentguard\Thomas: There are different kinds of
schema changes. Adding

elements/attributes to an extensibility point
doesn't necessarily break

something. But if we're adding stuff where there
was no extensibility

point, or removing things then it's not a
compatible change.

Nokia\Frederick: Isn't it valuable to get this
change in sooner rather

than later.

BEA\Hal: I agree. It's not clear to me whether
there will be anything

beyond 1.1. So I think it's do it now, or never do
it.

Sun\Ron: I concluded that we weren't making this
level of schema change

in 1.1. 

Microsoft\Chris: Issue title implies that we are
moving an attribute.

Sun\Ron: Proposal designed to not take anything
away but to make sure

you don't have to use internal overloaded values.

ContentGuard\Thomas: I think there is a disconnect
between what Ron just

said and the latest proposal.

Microsoft\Chris: I'd like to see mocked up
document edits and then we

can see what the changes are and get a feel for
what the impact is (e.g.

will there be possible conflicts if information
appears in two places )

Sun\Ron: I think such a proposal has already been
made. It was only one

or two sentences added. One to advise against the
use of an attribute in

future profiles.

Don: Last meeting everyone agreed this should be
done. Only question was

whether to do it in 1.1 or some later spec.

ContentGuard\Thomas: Reads Ron's e-mail proposal

...Discussion between Ron, Thomas et.al. on what
the proposal says...

ContentGuard\Thomas: Maybe we should write up the
changes required to

each of the token profiles.

Microsoft\Chris: I'd like to see us define what it
means if both

attributes are present.

Sun\Ron: I would say that only one attribute
SHOULD appear.

Microsoft\Chris: But if you only allow one ( the
new one) , how do you

indicate the reference type?

Microsoft\Chris (paraphrasing Ron): If they're
both specified, they must

be consistent, otherwise it's an error.

Sun\Ron: I could go along with that. If you
specify both attributes, the

token type has to be consistent with the value
type.

Microsoft\Chris: I propose we get an updated
proposal sent to the list

that captures the above. I'd like to see us vote
on this at the next

meeting.

Contentguard\Thomas: I'm not comfortable voting
until I see the changes

to the 1.1 token profiles.

Microsoft\Chris: We don't know that there will be
any impact. If we

decided not to rev the profiles, we can write up
the impact. 

..Some discussion between Chris, Ron and Thomas
about impact and schema

changes.

Microsoft\Chris: Ron needs to amend his proposal
as above and to modify

the language so that it doesn't say that the
attribute is deprecated,

but rather is deprecated as a way of indicating
the token type ( rather

than the reference type ).

ACTION: Ron to produce updated proposal. Based on
above minutes.

Contentguard\Thomas: I'm not happy voting on this
until I've seen the

text.

Microsoft\Chris: The TC seems to be OK with having
a vote on the next

call. There may be such a vote.

Issue 310.

Microsoft\Vijay: Not yet done. 

Microsoft\Chris: Leave 310 open

Issue 338:

BEA\Hal: No progress yet

Microsoft\Chris: Leave open

Issue 349

Sun\Ron: Don't want to prohibit ReferenceList.
Agreement was reached but

doc not updated.

Nokia\Frederick: I'll make that update.

Microsoft\Chris: Move to pending.

Issue 353

Microsoft\Chris: 353 is closed ( we have added new
schema elements in

1.1 )

Issue 354

Sun\Ron: I've added text to make the point clear
but apparently is

hasn't helped. I've sent mail to the commentators
but not heard back.

I've fixed the typos.

Microsoft\Chris: Looks like we have a SAML Profile
1.1 ( due to

corrections to typos ).

Sun\Ron: I'm not sure we'd create a 1.1 just for
the typos.

Sun\Ron: I've prepared a SAML 2.0 profile, I have
a draft that supports

SAML 1.1 and 2.0. I'd like to have that be the
next version of the SAML

Token Profile. 

BEA\Hal: We should create an 'errata fixed'
document first, then worry

about a second document.

Microsoft\Chris: I don't think there would be
objections to including

SAML 2.0 in a future SAML Token profile.

BEA\Hal: SAML 2.0 will become an OASIS standard
next month.

Neustar\Jeff: Still need to figure out how to
deprecate older specs.

Next version of SAML Token Profile should support
1.1 and 2.0, need to

then deprecate the 1.1 only SAML Token Profile
spec.

BEA\Hal: Why is it necessary to deprecate the
spec?

Neustar\Jeff: Because then people only have to go
to one document to

know about 1.1 and 2.0.

Sun\Ron: Combined document will be the 1.1
document, plus the 2.0 stuff.

If you wanted 1.1 support, you could look at
either document.

Microsoft\Chris: Mark 354 as pending. Editors to
create an errata for

SAML 1.1 Token Profile.

ACTION: Editors to create an errata for SAML 1.1
Token Profile.

> 7. Interop events status

Kerberos Interop:

Microsoft\Chris: One party has an endpoint up, but
no date for event

yet. Gudge is working on a date for the interop
event. 

> 8. Remaining business for 2005

IBM\Kelvin: We need to work on the Minimalist
Profile. 

BEA\Hal: Biometric token profile?

Microsoft\Chris: We'd need someone to champion
that work.

BEA\Hal: Not clear to me how you use Biometric for
Sig/Enc

IBM\Kelvin: So current work is 1.1, Kerberos Token
Profile, SWA Profile

and then Minimalist Profile in that order. And
Kerberos completes our

requirements for WS-I BSP.

BEA\Hal: WS-I BSP will probably profile everything
that comes out of

this TC.

IBM\Kelvin: So that's our work for the first
quarter ish of this year?

BEA\Hal: Well, there are other specs that are in
this space that will be

going into standards orgs at some point.

> 9. Other business

No other business.

> 10. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 08:10am PST

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be
removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.