OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: 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?
        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

        After the namespace issue discussion there will be minor changes needed in the documents...

Issues List review:

Namespace Proposal #135, & #31
                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
                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?
                Is there a reference to the message for this?
                It was sent yesterday...[wss] File and namespace naming proposal
                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>
                I think you are reading too much into "namespace"...are you asking about schema namespaces? how do you define namespace?
                something that's defined by the namespaces spec
                the section on namespaces I interpreted as URL's ....where Kelvin has "namespace" read it as URL....
                Paul is thinking namespace as in schema....
                in the last sentence......that;s what you usually do for a namespace document
                Paul, how should this be worded....we want some human readable way to locate the document and schema....
                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?
                in the schema, the namespace equals the URI of the schema
                have we reached resolution that we are going to drop the  # sign?
                we could use a number....reserve a number
                this might not work if there is no scheme set up for numbering
ACTION: Kelvin to resolve

#169  pending
        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]
        Must Understand.....Irving was to write up a proposal....
         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?
         yes this was pretty much it
<no dissent>

#196 qualified names instead of URI's ..
        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...
        at the last meeting we agreed we would create a new element in the wsse namespace that has the same type as canonicalization  
        there were 2 proposals in Merlins mail...that's the first
        the second is slightly more general and clumsy...extend with an algorithm parameter (ds:transforms can  then have any parameters )
        I'm  inclined to do the tactical....
        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?  
        I sent that around.
        has there been any feedback? will you get another version out?
        yes by next call
        does anyone know how stable the SAML one is?
<no response>
        when we get Ron's update we should consider an interop on that one
        what about the XRML profile?
        no comments on the profile
        should we do a remote interop
        yes worked well last time
        on current course & speed we have one more (16th) before the last on the 30th.....suggest not meeting on 30th.....
        anyone feel otherwise?
        can we just slip a week instead of waiting 2?
        this seems to cause problems
Any other business?

        whats the plan for closing out 1.0
        plan is to get the docs out and resolve the issues.....
        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
        by the January meeting are we hoping to have a vote? I'm just trying to push it
        I'm all in favor of that....chris what do you think....if we put forward the call on the 13th of January?
        In agreement
        Any disagreement?  we'll make this the stake in the ground
        could you send out a short email with that schedule and what the process is? the vote, etc
        will do

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]