XML Key Management Services WG

DRAFT 09 November 2004 XKMS Teleconference Minutes
Chairs: Stephen Farrell, Shivaram Mysore
Note Takers: Shivaram Mysore

Participants

• Shivaram Mysore
• Jose Kahan, W3C
• Pete Wenzel, See Beyond
• Guillermo Alvaro, Trinity College
• Tommy Lindberg
• Rich Salz, Datapower

Regrets

• Stephen Farrell, Trinity College

Agenda

• Announcements
• Review last telecon AIs
• Current issues list
• Interop - Matrix, Event
• AOB

Minutes

• In the last telecon we had the following AIs which are still carried forward:
  
  1. Yunhao has some additional tests that he can do, but which are not yet part of the test suite (e.g. re-issue). We agreed to try to start incorporating such tests into our procedures even it ifs earlier than planned.

     AI: Jose incorporate those into the questionaire. (Yunhao also noted that he'll be making some batch test scripts available from his web page which semi-automate running tests.) DONE

  2. AI Stephen: Check on OCSP issue with IETF, ETC, DSS and other groups and report back. STILL OPEN
  3. AI: Implementors - Upgrade to the new schema.
     As per today's (Nov 9th) meeting:
     Tommy will move to new schema in the next 10 days or so. Rich agreed to follow the same. Tommy reported that SQLData possibly sent some messages to his server with the new schema and hence believes that they may also be on the way. We don't have the status on other implementations. STILL OPEN
     AI: All Send comments on updated schema to the list STILL OPEN
  4. AI: Chairs/Jose - Chairs and Jose will propose a deadline for the end of the interop exercise.
     As per today's (Nov 9th) meeting, we decided to work on this date in the next meeting on Nov 23rd. STILL OPEN
  5. Open enumeraitons in the schema. AI: Tommy - say if this issue is closed or what pieces of the schema should move to use OpenEnum. STILL OPEN
  6. AI: All - Don't forget to start thinking and writing down your ideas on what should constitute a compliant XKMS and/or XKRSS clients/servers based on your experience. Do we need to have several levels of compliancy or just one? Should they always support asynchronous, synchronous, and compound requests? STILL OPEN
  7. Yunhao said that the spec doesn't say anything on how many times should a client send a Status Request in order to complete a request. Rich sugges that maybe we should add a non normative choreography section or appendix to the spec to describe this. STILL OPEN - this was not discussed - concensus?
• AI: Tommy & All - Provide more tests incorporating the new schema especially related to
  1. Registration - which are very few currently
  2. Compound Messages
  3. SOAP specific tests - ex. expected behavior for Must Understand, Version, etc
• AI: Tommy & All - Send list of other test cases that are necessary
• Tommy has PGP support working. He will expose that in the next week or so.
• AI: Tommy - Use of AlgorithmIdentifier - propose new schema which uses ds:digestMethod
• AI Rich - Send response to Stephen's email on CompoundRequests - implementors can do sequence or parallel and if one wants sequence behaviour, then send independent messages - mail sent DONE
  AI: Shivaram - make spec changes accordingly.
• AI: Shivaram - Issue 322-tl - Delete the sentence
• AI: Shivaram - Issue 323-ga - Fix - Schema has a failed attribute and text is incorrect
• AI Jose - Update CR issue list
• List of PR exit criteria items:
  1. Enough Tests
  2. What is not implemented or tested
  3. Interop Event Report
  4. List of Changes in the Spec
  At this time, we are making good progress in terms of document update, maintenance and implementations.

Next Telecon

• Next Telecon(s)
• Date: November 23, 2004; Time - 8:30AM - 9:30AM PT, 11:30AM - 12:30PM ET check time for your local area here
• Zakim Bridge (617) 761-6200 Code: "XKMS"
• Future telecons at the same time on December 7th
• Agenda: More discussions on Interop Event results, Interop Matrix; issue list, Moving to PR