Minutes for 25 Aug meeting

[Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>]

See attached.
	/r$

MINUTES FOR DSS TC meeting, 25 Aug 2003.

Attendance 
        Voting Members
        Juan-Carlos Cruellas, self
        Frederick Hirsch, Nokia Mobile Phones
        Burt Kaliski, RSA Security
        Pieter Kasselman, Baltimore
        Andreas Kuehne, self
        Hal Lockhart, BEA Systems
        Tim Moses, Entrust 
        Trevor Perrin, self
        Nick Pope, self
        Rich Salz, DataPower Technology

        *We did not have quorum.*

Action items
        We reviewed the action item list.  Details appear at end
        of message.

Requirements document:
        Trevor distributed draft 12.  Major change from draft 11 is
        removing the sentence that marks timestamping as a profile of
        the DSS protocol.  While TS is desired, the relationship to
        the core protocol is TBD.  See Trevor's email of 14-Aug for
        list of changes between drafts 10 and 11.

        Discussion (primarily among Trevor, Pieter, and Nick) about how
        to query, specify, and manage implicit parameters.  For
        example, are they all implied by the application profile URI now?
        The intent of the document is to require that they almost all
        be specifiable, with server-determined defaults.  Nick pointed
        out there are many details that will need to be specified in the
        protocol document.  Pieter mentioned need for an extensible format
        for a server to specify the implicit parameters.  Nick suggested
        not adding a new service endpoint for parameter management.
        Further discussion moved to email list.

Core document and schema
        Nick said that it's currently this is an outline for putting
        in all the details. It is on hold until the schema (most
        recent draft by Juan-Carlos and Trevor) becomes more complete.
        Tim asked for more explanatory text; Juan-Carlos and Trevor agreed,
        and Juan-Carlos will add XML comments into the schema document and
        distribute a new version in a couple of days.
        *Now is the time for the whole TC to start review and
        discussion of the schema.*
        Time asked if it was a deliberate decision to use
        elements, as opposed to attributes?  Answer is yes, but perhaps
        there are places that it should be changed.  Tim suggested
        the request ID.  Further discussion on the list.

        Juan-Carlos intends to work on the validation request and response
        definitions, to have something by the next conf call.

Compound operations
        Explanation by Nick:  a single operation can have multiple
        actions.  An important open issue:  do we have multiple operations
        (timestamp, sign, verify, etc), or are the operations specified
        in the process element?

Tiumestamping:
        Tim sent an initial email proposal to the list; there has
        been some discussion and still are some open issues.  The
        basic concept is that a timestamp is a ds:Signature type,
        and can be verified as such.

        Some discussion about times as min/max or value/accuracy,
        especially about which has easier processing model (e.g.,
        for sorting).  Currently use value/accuracy, which was
        consensus today, but it's not a closed issue -- bring
        discussion to the list.

        Tim plans a new draft this week.

        Juan-Carlos will add current document to the repository.

Naming conventions for work product
        Tim sent a proposal.  See the list.

DSS profiles:
        Nick said this is a placeholder to capture comments, and
        doesn't expect any real activity until there is more progress
        on the schema.

Patent issues:
        Nick and Juan-Carlos have an AI to udpate the TC web pages to
        discuss patent issues.  Still open, waiting for OASIS
        web issues to be fixed.

        Nick posted the Sign On (Formpipe) patent, reviewed it,
        and believes it's not relevant and that we should ignore it.
        (See email for his rationale.)  Rich concurs.  We will.

        Frederick said Zolera patent holder understands our interests.
        Nothing else to do for now, since it's only an application
        anyway.

        Hal said that we can now close this issue, since no other
        TC member has brought up IPR issues.

Any other business:
        Nick said that OASIS has asked all TC chairs to submit a
        FAQ by Sept 2.  Hal says the intent is to inform the "casual
        browser" of what the TC is doing, so they can see if they're
        interested in looking further (e.g., reading [draft] specs).
        Nick wrote a draft, sent it to the list, and will submit it
        to OASIS.  Juan-Carlos asked if the FAQ is updatable; Nick said yes.

        Tim said that our documents are currently in the TC private
        area.  Shouldn't they be public?  Hal said OASIS allows TC's
        to do what they want, but that in the interest of getting as
        much public feedback as possible, unless something is in rapid
        edit mode, better to make public.  No disagreement, and Nick
        will do this.

Here is the list of action items.  Actions 8, 10, 11, 17 are
not completed, and are marked with a plus sign.  Action 9 seems
to have "gone missing."

Action 1. Update requirements document by August 1st (Trevor).
Done.

Action 2. Produce initial schema for the sign/verify and timestamp
operations by 5th Aug. (Trevor will work with Juan-Carlos).
Done. 

Action 3. Post a discussion on compound operations to the list (Ed).
Done.

Action 4. Produce analysis of the submitted materials on timestamp token
syntax. If possible, provide draft text to Trevor by 1st Aug (Tim).
Done.

Action 5. Send references to timestamp token syntax to Tim.  (Juan-Carlos) -
complete
Done

Action 6. Send Overview text to Trevor by 1st Aug.  Mention bindings issues
(Frederick).
Done

Action 7. Produce initial text on the WS-Security profile (Frederick).
Done

+Action 8. Update intellectual property page (Nick/Juan-Carlos).  Currently,
the DSS page has two declarations on IPR.  
In progress: sent messages to the server manager but not yet updated.

+Action 10. Check with John Messing regarding an author for the notary service
profile (Nick).
At the time when this ap was discussed Nick was not in the conference:
NICK: could you please put here whatever you consider adequate?

+Action 11. Check whether there is a need for a profile for the German
signature law (Andreas).
In progress

Action 12. Ed & Trevor agreed on 2 sentences wrt compound
operations for reqs document, not there, has been removed. To be added 
again.
Done - added to requirements

Action 13: Ed to send text to Trevor wrt Option element missing
from sign req/resp schema.
Done - added to schema 01

Action 14: Tim will propose text for core document capturing
timestamp syntax, semantically equiv to ietf 3161.
Done

Action 15: Ed post links to Swedish ?Signform patent.
Done

Action 16: Frederick check on Volera patent statement.
Done

+Action 17: Nick to send text to list acknowledging that the XKMS
response meets our needs; then will forward to XKMS group.
Open

Action 18: Nick to send proposed FAQ for OASIS to list, then
will forward to OASIS.
Done

Action 19: Ed to submit text to list wrt combined operations,
ref 5.4 from agenda.
Done