Subject: draft minutes: W3C/IETF liaison call 2011-11-29

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:30:25 +0100

Attached.
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <[email-masked]>  (@roessler)

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:25:39 -0500

- JOSE WG

Basic goal: support for key features from CMS (~ XADES) but in a
JSON/JavaScript-friendly representation.

Discussions were productive, three documents appear to be close to
acceptance as WG items (small changes requested before publication).
Several application working groups (CORE, ALTO, XMPP, etc.) provided
input and are interested in using the output of the WG. A use cases
document might be one result of that input.

Open issue is whether serialization is needed.

===========

Really?  How can this be an open issue?  If there is ever a situation where a signer passes a message to an intermediary that might under some circumstance make a change to the encoding before it arrives to the validator, then a canonical form is needed.  This happens all of the time in IM and email today...

Russ

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:28:44 +0100

It's entirely possible that this is a case of poor minute-taking...  Sean or Stephen should be able to clarify before these minutes go out to a broader audience.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:30:02 -0700

On 11/30/11 8:28 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> It's entirely possible that this is a case of poor minute-taking...  

Yes, poor minute taking, but I'm not sure what the point was. :(

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:59:37 -0500

> Open issue is whether serialization is needed.

I guess this could be rephrased as the WG needs to decide how they're 
going to support serialization.  Jim brought it up as a CMS feature and 
it wasn't clear whether the proposed solution addressed it or not.

spt