Re: [abfab] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response, Sam, but we've allowed normative references
to Informational documents for more than ten years, since RFC 3967,
and there are a great many examples where a normative reference to an
informational document is used when the latter is needed for
terminology definitions.

Yes, this isn't a DISCUSS, and I won't block publication on this
point.  But please consider whether it's really the right thing to
have necessary terminology definitions in an informative reference.
Can someone fully understand this document without having definitions
for "relying party" and "identity provider"?

(No need for further response, unless you want to discuss it.  I've
said all I need to, and, again, thanks for the reply.)

Barry


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Sam Hartman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>     Barry> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Barry> COMMENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Barry> Because abfab-arch defines the terms "Client", "Relying
>     Barry> Party", and "Identity Provider", I think abfab-arch should be
>     Barry> a normative reference.
>
> I don't think abfab-arch can be a normative reference because I think
>  it's an informational document.
>
> I note this is a comment not a discuss, but wanted to explain why we
> won't be able to address it.
>
> I think your other comments look good.