April 23, 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, Sue G seconds. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved.
Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
Minutes up for approval: April 09, 2014
- Tim moved, Chris seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved.
Status on 2.40 second review
Tim moves that the PKCS 11 TC approve submitting the following documents for a fifteen-day public review (once the urls are available - as some are still being propagated by OASIS staff):
1. “OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Base Specification Version 2.40 Committee Specification Draft 02”, located at http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-base/v2.40/csd02/pkcs11-base-v2.40-csd02.html
2. “OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Current Mechanisms Specification Version 2.40 Committee Specification Draft 02”, located at http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-curr/v2.40/csd02/pkcs11-curr-v2.40-csd02.html
3. “OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Historical Mechanisms Specification Version 2.40 Committee Specification Draft 02”, located at http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-hist/v2.40/csd02/pkcs11-hist-v2.40-csd02.html
4. “OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Profiles Version 2.40 Committee Specification Draft 02”, located at http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-profiles/v2.40/csd02/pkcs11-profiles-v2.40-csd02.html
5. “OASIS PKCS # 11 Cryptographic Token Interface Usage Guide Version 2.40 Committee Note Draft 02”, located at http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-ug/v2.40/cnd02/pkcs11-ug-v2.40-cnd02.html
Bob R seconded the motion. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Approved
- Tim and Bob R to work this through.
Moving forward with v3.0
- Valerie: Wan-Teh and Mike have posted documents to the reflector - has anyone had a chance to review them?
- Mike: hasn't seen anything from Wan-Teh but was expecting something
- Wan-Teh: was on vacation last week.
- Valerie: There was an action item on Wan-Teh to send out a clarification of the word associations that he and Mike are using differently.
- Wan-Teh: Requested 2 more weeks so should have some content for his definition on the next conference call
- Mike StJ provided a full proposal covering ID_generation, message based processing and AEAD expansion/processing. Still needs to go through and make sure error codes in the appropriate places. Other than that it's about as good as its going to be.
- Valerie asked Wan-Teh if he had reviewed it - he had not.
- Valerie asked if anyone had any comments on Mike's proposal.... Crickets.
- Bob R: One of the things missing from Wan-Teh's proposal that is important now is to get the signature-based message based processing done as well as the encryption-based stuff. May not need to be more than a single call per processing message regardless of enc/dec/verify sign etc.
- Tim: there are two approaches here so get captured and vote on one, other or neither.
- Bob R agreed
- Valerie: Sounds good get them in in two weeks and do a straw poll
- Wan-Teh: I could read's Mike's proposal and see if there's something in there that is useful
- Valerie agreed
- Mike: I haven't looked at the old text but there is a signature with message recovery set of calls and it may be that if we don't do message based processing, we should maybe look at those as method of dealing with AEAD. These are so obscure I don't think anyone uses them. It would be worthwhile for people to have a quick look at those.
- Valerie: Bob R have you had a chance to review Mikes proposal?
- Bob R: No I haven't - will do
- Valerie: Sven is not on call to discuss his recently submitted proposal which was an update to the item from the face to face.Bob and I have not been able to work on that for issues for 3.0.
- ValerieL: Bob R (threading) or H-M (policy files) have you had a chance to work on those items or too soon?
Bob R & H-M: too soon.
- Stef W: Posted a problem statement about Problem Statement: Attribute and Object Schema to the list. Welcomes anyone who has vendor-specific solutions for this to speak up.
- Valerie: Has anyone read this?
- Tim: Perhaps folks should read it and discuss next meeting
- Valerie: Agreed. More discussion on the list would be good
- Stef: indicated some overlap with Sven's presentation especially on the error reporting side of things.
- Valerie indicated error reporting is especially important on e.g. Java side of things from Oracle's perspective.
- Valerie: Discussion of error messages would be good - will try to capture on the wiki.
Stef: One other thing .. related to threading WaitForSlotEvent notification records for events that happen in the module - how we require a per module thread to be blocked and ways to solve that.If we have more predictable threading (like requiring OS support for that), we could have cleaner solutions there.
- Valerie: Would be interesting to have more discussion on that.
- BobR indicated that would add an additional requirement on all vendors.
- Stef indicated further discussion would be good.
- 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)
Motion to Adjourn
Tim moved, Stef & Chris seconded. No objections or abstentions or discussions. Adjourned 1:28PM US-PDT.