[11:51:36] --- geoffbeier has joined
[11:54:02] --- geoffbeier has left
[12:14:01] --- crw-ietf has joined
[12:32:52] --- aljosa has joined
[12:33:33] <aljosa> anybody there?
[12:33:51] <crw-ietf> yep
[12:34:07] <aljosa> is the ltans going on?
[12:34:19] <crw-ietf> not yet. starts in 25 minutes.
[12:34:27] <aljosa> aha, ok
[12:34:41] <aljosa> it looks like i have problems with the audio
[12:35:03] <crw-ietf> the audio feed may not have started. not sure how that's going.
[12:35:47] <aljosa> i see, i have to wait as it does not give any response at the moment
[12:41:05] <crw-ietf> Here's a link to an email from Tobias with links to the screen sharing application and audio stream links: http://www.imc.org/ietf-ltans/mail-archive/msg00520.html.
[12:42:25] <aljosa> i know, been trying this a while but only university of oregon's radio station works :-/
[12:53:39] --- geoffbeier has joined
[12:55:02] --- ryu.inada has joined
[12:55:36] <aljosa> is there anyone having audio working?
[12:59:34] <geoffbeier> i'm getting data but it's just silence
[13:00:14] --- Melinda has joined
[13:00:14] <crw-ietf> tobias is testing the audio now. any luck?
[13:00:17] <Melinda> yes
[13:00:40] <Melinda> Sounds fine.
[13:00:52] <crw-ietf> great. we'll get started momentarily.
[13:02:54] <aljosa> got it to now
[13:03:38] --- kurosaki has joined
[13:03:58] <crw-ietf> first slides are up...going through the administrivia
[13:04:26] <crw-ietf> 2 revisions of ERS since Dallas. Some open issues to address since last call.
[13:04:42] <crw-ietf> 1 version of ERS/SCVP doc with minor mods
[13:04:53] <crw-ietf> 1 version (still incomplete) of LTAP
[13:05:11] <crw-ietf> Archive reqs doc will be submitted as informational RFC soon
[13:05:42] <crw-ietf> Plan is to finalize ERS and ERS/SCVP docs before San Diego with WG last calls for each in the interim
[13:06:21] <crw-ietf> informal agenda. interupt with questions at any time.
[13:07:06] --- jimsch1 has joined
[13:07:11] <crw-ietf> moving on to the milestones slides...
[13:07:50] <crw-ietf> notary work was suspended at the Dallas meeting.
[13:08:25] --- RJC has joined
[13:08:54] --- RJC has left
[13:08:58] <crw-ietf> LTAP and ERS are the primary focuses of the WG going forward
[13:10:14] <crw-ietf> plan to finish ERS by october
[13:10:32] <crw-ietf> ltap revision by august. aiming for last call by end of the year.
[13:10:51] <aljosa> BTW, there is ERS XML interpretation on the way
[13:10:56] <crw-ietf> ers/scvp and artifact retention drafts last call by the end of the year
[13:11:04] <crw-ietf> shutdown by 2007
[13:11:07] <aljosa> might be useful to mention
[13:11:56] <aljosa> the structures are finished, need to work on the draft text
[13:12:01] <crw-ietf> moving on to the ERS slides...
[13:12:17] --- tlr has joined
[13:13:21] <crw-ietf> current ERS version is -07. mods vs. -06 were very minor. mainly editorial but some (minor) changes to syntax
[13:13:36] <crw-ietf> encryption section was removed
[13:14:03] <crw-ietf> due to lack of use and interest in that feature
[13:14:11] <crw-ietf> may be addressed with a later document
[13:14:35] <crw-ietf> last call was held in May. some comments were received. spec is stable at this point.
[13:14:47] <crw-ietf> plan to approach a final last call within the next few weeks.
[13:15:23] <crw-ietf> an EXPLICIT indication was added but was overcome by later events
[13:15:58] <crw-ietf> some ambiguity was removed in the ArchiveTimeStamp structure
[13:16:42] <crw-ietf> suggestion to change from SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE OF to SEQUENCE OF PartialHashtree
[13:17:30] <crw-ietf> readability and compiler generated names motivate the change
[13:17:41] <crw-ietf> show of hands in the room indicate the change should be made
[13:17:46] <crw-ietf> voice any objection
[13:18:02] <crw-ietf> plan to adopt the change
[13:19:13] <crw-ietf> there was a question regarding reducedHashtree being OPTIONAL. Tobias indicates this is to simplify processing when data groups are notused
[13:19:30] <crw-ietf> any opinions regarding removing OPTIONAL?
[13:19:40] <crw-ietf> plan is to leave the field OPTIONAL.
[13:20:32] <crw-ietf> reviewing ASN.1 imports now...details are in the slides
[13:21:06] <crw-ietf> question to Russ as to where the AlgID should be imported from
[13:22:40] <crw-ietf> Russ says, the reason PKIX and S/MIME specs are ASN1 88 is because there was no open source compiler at the time that could handle newer syntax. Jim tested newer syntax with newer compilers and found that 88 syntax is still required because not all features required for newer syntax are supported
[13:23:06] <crw-ietf> Final word, is "use 88 or it will come back". since the AD has spoken, the import will remain with the PKIX 88 syntax.
[13:23:37] <crw-ietf> several products are fielded despite final version of spec being available
[13:23:53] <crw-ietf> XML mapping requires a stable spec to proceed efficiently
[13:24:30] <crw-ietf> last call planned for version -08
[13:24:30] <aljosa> SETCCE will have ERS implementation with IBM (CM) by end of july
[13:25:28] <crw-ietf> changing scribes (to Tobias)
[13:25:48] <crw-ietf> Carl is presenting
[13:26:26] <crw-ietf> starting presentation about EvidenceRecord validation
[13:26:50] <crw-ietf> slides ltans-4.ppt
[13:27:31] <aljosa> isn't that covered by ERS-SCVP?
[13:29:06] <aljosa> its aleksej :)
[13:29:06] <crw-ietf> answer from Carl: if we want it to be it could be
[13:29:35] <geoffbeier> don't we then need to specify the validation that the server will perform?
[13:30:05] <crw-ietf> it can be
[13:30:56] <aljosa> whats TOI? Time of verification?
[13:31:06] <crw-ietf> TOI is Time of Interest
[13:31:19] <aljosa> I know but what does it actually mean??
[13:31:57] <crw-ietf> Geoff: what do you mean?
[13:32:03] --- irino has joined
[13:32:10] <aljosa> the rules of validation should be implemented in the ERS itself
[13:32:15] <aljosa> not by the requestor
[13:33:15] <aljosa> yes
[13:33:27] <aljosa> thats what i mean
[13:34:02] <geoffbeier> i just meant that whether it was in ERS-SCVP or not we needed to specify it... carl said as much in the audio stream... i must behind. thanks.
[13:34:31] <aljosa> didnt mean server has its own ruels but rules should be transperent
[13:34:44] --- tlr has left
[13:34:49] <aljosa> and imbeded in the ers, so anyone can check
[13:35:42] <aljosa> yes
[13:36:52] <aljosa> carl is right this is missing
[13:37:23] <aljosa> ers is movable from subject to subject, hence the export function in ltap
[13:38:56] <crw-ietf> not the only thing the fexport function is for
[13:39:13] <aljosa> sure, thats not the only point but one of them
[13:39:39] <crw-ietf> Peters presentation about LTAP now
[13:41:06] <crw-ietf> slide 4of ltans-2.ppt now
[13:41:57] --- warlord has joined
[13:46:24] <aljosa> relation between data and metadat is not a matter of TAS
[13:46:33] <aljosa> hiwever the metadata can be included in the request
[13:46:57] <aljosa> the difference in the next version is that the structure of metadata will be open
[13:48:34] <crw-ietf> changing scribes again (back to Carl)
[13:49:01] <crw-ietf> recapping the milestones... (back on the milestones slides)
[13:49:18] <crw-ietf> any comments/concerns with milestones, way forward, etc.?
[13:49:52] <crw-ietf> any last questions/comments before adjourning?
[13:50:06] --- jimsch1 has left
[13:50:11] <aljosa> thanks for the discussion
[13:50:11] <crw-ietf> meeting adjourned...thanks for coming
[13:50:15] --- kurosaki has left
[13:50:20] --- geoffbeier has left
[13:50:22] <Melinda> Thanks for the jabber scribing!
[13:50:38] --- crw-ietf has left
[13:51:19] --- irino has left
[13:51:19] --- aljosa has left
[13:52:06] --- ryu.inada has left
[13:52:45] --- Melinda has left
[13:53:29] --- warlord has left
[19:00:30] --- LOGGING STARTED