WSS-Minutes 12/2

[Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>]

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