March 12, 2014 Meeting Minutes
- Minutes approved in 26 March 2014 meeting.
Roll call done by Valerie, quorum not reached. Bob joined at 1:19PM PT, giving us quorum. Went back to get motions and votes.
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
- Moving forward with v3.0
- Topics for next call
6 New Business
7 Review Action Items
- Jane RSA2015: Interop booth
Motion to accept agenda
- TIm moves to accept.
- Bob R. seconds
- No objections, abstentions or discussions. Approved.
1. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
- Minutes up for approval: 28-February-2014
- Tim moves to accept
- Bob R. seconds.
- No objections, discussions or abstentions.
- Minutes approved.
2. Interop Booth
- Jane Hernad joined to talk about the RSA2015 show. Trying to get a premier spot, currently have 6 people signed up and need 8. Giving KMIP and PKCS11 priority. If you didn't receive a copy of it and would like one, please send Jane a mail. The maximum number of vendors will be 12. We will have the space where NSA was at RSA2014. It's a 20'x20' booth. PKCS11 is getting priority. Need signups by the 28th of March.
3. Status on 2.40 documents
- Chris is not here, but he has uploaded his latest draft. Bob believes this is done.
- Sue: Done with it unless someone says otherwise.
- Tim on Profiles doc: done unless someone says otherwise. Unchanged since before face to face
- Bob G: will go through on Monday to finish going through the comment list, then next Monday or Tuesday will ask for Chet to start the review. Will go through the notes from the face to face, but Bob believes we're ready to go to final review. Unless there are objections, we'll take the vote from the face-to-face and move forward.
- Tim moves requst the co-chairs to initiate a 15 day public review for the documents as currently in the PKCS11 working documents folder and add links to the current agenda.
- Bob R. seconds.
- No objections or abstentions.
- AI: Valerie to add links to our final documents to this agenda (completed):
- Bob heard from Chet that we can add minor changes and still do a 15-day public review. We will only have to take comments on items that have changed since the last public review. We can of course look at any other comments, but as long as is not major we would not require another public review.
- If then there are no further changes of substance, we would vote to make it an official candidate for a standard and then it would move forward with final OASIS membership view.
- We will need at that point 3 statements of use. EMC and Cryptsoft will be bringing them forward, will need at least one more company to contribute a SoU.
4. 3.0 Proposals
- Wan-Teh: Uploaded the latest design to the OASIS site. This is the same as what he presented at face-to-face, but in text format. He has also listed issues and brought forth alternative designs. If helpful, then he can put them in a second document to make it easier to review.
- Bob: we'd only want to do that if there was dissension, then we could use that for a vote.
- Wan-Teh: what I chose is specified.
- ???: a gentleman brought up issues on the list. Bob R: That was Mike , he is not here, so we will have to discuss this more at the next meeting.
Bob R: there is a global issue about spellings. There is a preference for certain spelling that Wan-Teh didn't include. We should take a vote to say how we want to see this done as new functions or match the existing set. (C_EncryptInit)
- Bob R: we might support the proposal, but not like how it's presented. So, that issue should be handled separately.
- Bob G: suspects we can do that question as a voice vote, but take the full specification to a formal vote. Or we can do both options up for vote at the same time.
- Wan-Teh: I can take two slides from the presentation that cover this specific issue. I can put something together for this
- Bob G: that would be helpful, then we can determine discussion, voice vote, or ballot. Any other comments? None today.
4. Review of face-to-face meeting topics/3.0
- Tim Hudson suggests deferring until we have a meeting with Bob and Mike.
- Bob then turned up. Stef Walter can't be here today, but he has some initial thoughts of what to do in this area. Bob G. will go through our September face-to-face minutes to see if there is anything else to add.
- In next meeting, we'll also cover other outstanding issues.
- Sven: what do we call it? 3.0? then we have all these ideas from our discussions, are they worth being included in the next release? identify the most important ones to see if this really will be a major release. What is the schedule and what is the time scale to come up with the different options. Suggestion should split this group in two to go through the issues to see which ones will make this a major release.
- Bob G: That will be helpful. It will take a couple of meetings to work through to get consensus. Imagines it will take until at least April or May to get a list. Would like to go to public review in the second quarter of this year (May/June). This would give us a chance to make a fairly significant statement to the industry. Wants to look at thread safety and process forking. any comments?
- Sven: I didn't understand. Are you saying none of these items should be in the next list?
- Bob G: no, I think what you suggested of going through your list with Jan and coming back to us in 2 weeks to give us some discussion points.
- Sven: sounds good.
- Bob G: if anyone else has anything, please let me know or bring them forward in 2 weeks.
- Valerie: what did you want to take public? Just a list of topics we're tackling? or full documents?
- Bob G: yes, it will take awhile to fully do the work in the mech and base docs, but that the committee should be able to commit to what changes they want in 3.0 by then. That's probably pushing it too much in terms of work by the editors.
- TIm: what people want to happen, and what they have time to work on are not always the same thing, so this will help us work that out.
- Tim: need to work out which profiles are supported to see if it fits the next release or not.
- Bob G: any other issues or concerns folks want to bring forward?
- Sven: I have concern about pushing a release after 2.40. I'm concerned about the number of releases we discuss and the timing. It's important to give the market time to adopt the release. If we do it every year, it will be too much churn. what kind of distance do we want between releases?
- Bob G: let's go through this in 2 weeks, also given priority from Sept face -to-face. Also check to see if we're burdening implementors by releasing too quickly. Given the scheduling of OASIS, doesn't seem like we could have anything out in less than 9 months, but let's look at this. In 2 weeks we'll look at Wan-Teh's proposal, Sven's break down, face-to-face action items, and hopefully any news from Chet.
Motion to Adjourn
- Tim moves, Bob R. seconds. Motion passes and meeting adjourns at 1:50PM PT.