XML Key Management Services WG

DRAFT 30th July 2003 XKMS Teleconference Minutes
Chairs: Stephen Farrell, Shivaram Mysore
Note Takers: Stephen Farrell

Participants

1. Stephen Farrell, Trinity College Dublin
2. Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
3. Blair Dillaway, Microsoft
4. Shivaram Mysore, Sun Microsystems
5. Joseph Reagle, W3C
6. Jose Kahan, W3C
7. Rich Salz
8. Donald Eastlake

Minutes

Agenda

1. Status update & Issues list resolutions [3] - Phill
2. Next Steps Last call status

Meeting notes

Shivaram started the call by welcoming Jose (our new W3C minder) and by thanking Joseph for all his great work in this and other W3C WGs.

We reviewed the issues and agreed as follows:-

• Issue 301 - Shivaram to respond saying thanks and we'll do it
• Issue 302 - Blair will respond that UseKeyWith sounds like its usable but that we would not be the ones to define such URIs
• Issue 303 - We agreed that it was hard to give a great response since the comments seem to be based on a misaprehension as the what XKMS is about - Stephen agreed to send a mail to the submitter along those lines and to check whether there are some other embedded issues that we should take account of.
• Issue 304 - we agreed that item 1 is a reasonable point, but that we feel we should stick with our current approach (since it works ok, but is just different); items 2 & 3 are correct and will be actioned; we need to clarify how the XKMS editor (Phill) thinks that item 4 is to be resolved; and item 5 seems correct; Frederick will mail a response along these lines to the submitter (or maybe someone else in Entrust)
• Issue 305 - Phill to respond to Joseph (editorials)
• Issue 306 - Phill to respond to submitter that we're making those changes (Shivaram noted that the changes don't yet seem to have been made to the schema)
• Issue 307 - Phill to respond to the submitter; For item 1: we agreed that we do not want to include the ability to select by algorithm (or e.g. key lengths/strengths) so we won't be adding a DSA/RSA switch; items 2 and 3 seem reasonable changes to make but we do not want to open a window for N-R to sneak in, so the maxOccurs="3" is correct and should remain; Phill to respond
• Issues 308, 309 and 310: were dealt with in Phill's mail from July 10 and subsequent follow-ups; but Phill should respond to the submitters accordingly

We agreed that when we get an Editor's draft which reflects all those changes, then that version (subject to WG confirmation/lack of objection) should be sent forward for progression to Candidate Recommendation. We will have a call in one week to try to expedite this.

The chairs (Shivaram) agreed to send a call to the list for participation in interop tests. We should make it clear that this should be on the same IPR basis as the work to date (e.g. we don't want copyrighted samples) and the chairs will also look for someone to own and maintain the interop matrix.

Action Items

(Some of the items below were allocated to Phill in his absence, but in his role as editor; the chairs will check that this isn't a problem.)

1. Respond to issue 301 submitter: Shivaram
2. Respond to issue 302 submitter: Blair
3. Respond to issue 303 submitter and check for embedded issues: Stephen
4. Respond to issue 304 submitter (or other Entrust person): Frederick
5. Respond to issue 305 submitter: Phill
6. Respond to issue 306 submitter: Phill
7. Respond to issue 307 submitter: Phill
8. Respond to issue 308 submitter: Phill
9. Respond to issue 309 submitter: Phill
10. Respond to issue 310 submitter: Phill
11. Setup a call for next week: Shivaram
12. Send call for participation in interop trials etc to WG list: Shivaram

Next Telecons

• Date -same time next week - to be confirmed to list
• Dial-in Number - probably the same
• Time - ditto