May 07, 2014 Meeting Minutes
- Valerie F performed roll call, we have quorum. This will be an official meeting.
1 Opening remarks (co-chairs)
2 Roll call
3 Review / approval of the agenda
4 Review of previous meeting minutes
5 Old Business
- Status of V2.40 second public review
- v3.0 topics
- Topics for next call
6 New Business
7 Review Action Items
Motion to accept agenda
- Tim moves to accept the agenda, Stef W seconds. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved.
Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
Minutes up for approval: April 23, 2014
- Tim moved, Mike StJ seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved.
Status on 2.40 second review
- A small reference error was found. Chris corrected it - we need a voice vote to move it forward.
- Tim moves that the PKCS 11 TC approve the following document as Committee Spec Draft and approve submitting it for a fifteen-day public review:
“OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Base Specification Version 2.40 Committee Specification Draft 02”, located at https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/pkcs11/download.php/52891/pkcs11-base-v2.40-csd02.doc
- Mike StJ seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved.
SoUs are still required Cryptsoft and EMC have agreed to move them forward, we still need a third. Bob R, have you been able to make any progress in that area?
- BobR: No, I have a reminder from Tim but been able to work on that yet.
- Valerie asked Tim about timing for SoU submission
- Tim: It needs to be in before we go for a specification vote.
- Valerie: After this round of review?
- Tim: Yes
Hal indicated that a CS had to exist first for the SoUs to reference.Vote to accept or vote to modify.
Moving forward with v3.0
- Valerie: I have not been able to get to creating the new wiki.
- Valerie: There are two discussion documents out for discussion does anyone have any thoughts on that.
- BobR: Wan-Teh has reached completion and we now have two competing proposals with fundamental differences between them.We need the committee to decide which way we'll move on them. I'd suggest we vote on which one we move forward.
Tim: I'd suggest we call a ballot along these lines: move forward with WanTeh's proposal, move forward with MikeS's proposal, move forward with neither proposal, move forward with both proposals. That way the view of the committee is very clear and we can focus our efforts. They're good proposals and we just need to pick one.
- Wan-Teh: unsure if anyone has reviewed beyond Wan-Teh and Mike StJ - would like comments
Mike StJ:L about 15-20 people have downloaded but no comments
- Tim: The ballot works as a forcing function to get folks to review the documents, comment and vote. I think a lot of folks have actually read them but want to pick one to put the effort into. I think they're both well written but we just need to move in one direction or another and we've discussed it long enough now that I've suggested a vote to sort it out.
- Valerie: This would help people to focus their review time?
- Tim: Yes - They're both well fleshed out proposals and Wan-Teh have put in a fair bit of effort on them but we need to make a call as a committee.
- Mike StJ: Can we require comments on a vote?
- Tim: That would be unusual.
- Mike StJ: We focused on different things and part of problem is choosing one, other or both, doesn't address the why did you do that and prompt further discussion on whether those items should be pursued.
- Tim: The proposals have been out for months..... OASIS view is to get the committee consensus and move forward
- Valerie: I agree. We should move forward with a vote. A voice vote ok, Tim?
- Tim: I'd propose a formal ballot (straw poll) as the work put into the proposal warrants the time and effort for folks to review and vote accordingly
- Wan-Teh: would like more time for folks to review before a vote.
* Tim proposes a straw poll to vote on the committee to:
1) move forward with WanTeh's proposal 2) move forward with MikeS's proposal 3) move forward with neither proposal 4) move forward with both proposals
- Valerie: we need people do to more work on additional proposals, hopefully getting the 3.0 suggestions wiki together for review in our next meeting will help. Each item, though, needs an owner to see it through and do the hard work of iterating on a proposal like Mike S and Wan-Teh have done.
- Tim noted that we won't have the right wording in the document at the vote time to say committee spec draft. Bob noted that last time when he changed the document, Chet made him back out the changes. Chet then later changed the wording. Tim is concerned these document may not be accepted without the adding the correct wording or to allow Chet to modify the the documents after a vote to move them forward. Tim wonders if we should change the wording of our motion. Bob thinks we're okay and will confirm with Chet. (AI for Bob to confirm with Chet)
- Valerie: create 3.0 suggestion document, move 2.40 suggestions over into new 3.0 suggestion document. (not started, yet) (09042014.01)
- Bob: will make a first pass by going through meeting minutes. I will send to Valerie, who can clean it up and post to the wiki.(09042014.02)
- Valerie (et al): add new suggestions to the 3.0 wiki, so we can track if they have owners and are moving forward. (09042014.03)
- Wan-Teh: it's true, my preference is to add a new function. I think I'm using association in a different way than Mike originally proposed. Wan-teh will write his association definition down (AI) I want to perform common initialization. (09042014.04) - This is now complete as Wan-Teh has submitted a new version.
Motion to Adjourn
- Tim moved, Mike StJ seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Adjourned 1:23PM US-PDT.