Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13796?nav=1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference minutes - 7 September 2006 ============================================== * Participants Donal Fellows (UoM) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Tom Maguire (EMC) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of new actions AI-0907a: Hiro to add Chris Jordan to the list of people attending the F2F at the IBM facility. AI-0907b: Takuya will search for an external reliable source of strong (or deprecated) ciphers to reference. AI-0907c: Andreas will revise the explanatory text and send the new version to Takuya. AI-0907d: Takuya will update the documents and issue a final call on the list. (Probably during GGF18.) AI-0907e: Hiro to send an email to Greg requesting that the 'obsoletes' information be added to the document template. AI-0907f: Hiro to add an agenda item for the F2F to discuss a revision of statement R0711. * Aug 10 minutes approved with no changes * Aug 31 minutes approved with minor changes - AI-0831g is incorrect in the list of actions. The correct text is in the body of the minutes. * Action Items review [Only actions with updates are listed.] - AI-0831a: Done - AI-0831b: Done - AI-0831h: Mark is working on a document and will mail it out when finished; perhaps next week. - AI-0828b: Done * GGF18 & F2F update - The schedule on the wiki is up to date - Ellen Stokes is not available Friday afternoon. If there is a need for additional Information Model discussion the schedule might have to change. - Tentative day for the second dinner is Tuesday (after the OGF reception). Hiro will put details on the wiki. - Chris Jordan is also planning to attend the F2F. AI-0907a: Hiro to add Chris Jordan to the list of people attending the F2F at the IBM facility. * Security Profile review Reviewed revised versions uploaded by Takuya before the call. ** Secure channel review - l.232: "discourage" does not sound correct. - Agreed to Hiro's proposed revised text "Appendix D lists suites not meeting criteria of R0319 and R0320." - l.225: States that secure ciphers are 'mandated' but the compliance statements only say "SHOULD NOT". - Agreed that the compliance statements should be changed to "MUST NOT" - What is the definition of a secure cipher? Discussed whether it is appropriate to include a list in the Appendix given that this is likely to be obsolete. - Agreed to reference an external source, if a reliable one can be found. It is good to have a dynamic list. - If no such source can be found then the Appendix should be included (or even perhaps spawning another short document). AI-0907b: Takuya will search for an external reliable source of strong (or deprecated) ciphers to reference. - Title: Takuya proposed changing the title to remove 'basic'. The term "Basic Security Profile" has been defined in the OGSA WSRF BP but this profile does not expose the BSP claim as defined in the WSRF BP. 'Basic' in the title is not correct. - Introduction: Revised text to clearly state that this profile is not required by all ogsa services; it is recommended for those services requiring a secure transport. - l.135: Takuya reviewed the terms defined and confirmed their consistent usage. Also added citations at every usage. ** Core profile review - l.173: Added R0302 to restrict occurrence of keyinfo to exactly one - The explanatory text above the compliance statements is not correct. It should state that it "mandates that keyinfo appears exactly once" - Also the text has a few minor english mistakes. AI-0907c: Andreas will revise the explanatory text and send the new version to Takuya. ** Other comments - With the change to OGF there is a new template. The documents should be updated to this new template before re-submission. The new template includes the new OGF copyright. - There is a new namespaces document in public comment that changes the namespace uri to use ogf. It is not formally published yet so it is up to the Authors to decide what to do at this time. - For the references section see OGSA 1.5 for how to cite published GGF documents. Also some citations need update (e.g., WSRF BP has been published.) - Any remaining change requests (e.g., update the citations of these since they are cited by each other) should be marked in the document and noted during submission to the tracker. - Title change should also be noted in the submission to the tracker. AI-0907d: Takuya will update the documents and issue a final call on the list. (Probably during GGF18.) * Roadmap document review - Chris Jordan gave a status overview - Roadmap is close to completion - Received updated information on most documents; some data document entries have not been updated yet. - Integrating information about WS standards from Michael Behrens - Discussed disposition of published documents. Should these be in the Appendix? - It was noted that there many be many documents that will not be updated. It will end up re-doing document type structure in the back as well. - Published documents can't be deleted. The dependency information included in each entry is still needed, and also how they fits with other documents. - One idea is to exploit the ordering within each of the 4 sections. Keep published documents in the same section and ordering entries by hierarchy and completion status - What about newer versions? There should be only one entry that includes older version information. - There is still an issue if the newer version obsoletes a previous one (or other documents). Each document should say which documents it obsoletes. There are many examples of this in W3C or IETF. - This is not done with OGF documents because authors have not been asked to do so and the OGF document template does not point that such information should be added. AI-0907e: Hiro to send an email to Greg requesting that the 'obsoletes' information be added to the document template. * WS-BaseFault discussion Tom Maguire sent an email about this issue to the list: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/2006-August/002037.html It is not clear what the meaning of the compliance statement in Sec.7.1.1 R0711 [WSRF BP]. Tom gave a recap of the 3 different interpretations listed in the email. The proposal is to revise the statement along the lines of proposed interpretation 3. (Make additional statements about the relation between BaseFaults and SOAP faults and under which circumstances BaseFaults should be used.) There was no quorum to reach a decision at this meeting. AI-0907f: Hiro to add an agenda item for the F2F to discuss a revision of statement R0711.