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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 08 January 2016 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF111B2C57; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:35:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gHkxWyUU-1JJ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A8511A0173; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 1so253654822ion.1; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:35:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NdHtwu3ReqRf+B0Lxe+O2FC0mYRlIsATPX3Vl/M+eEw=; b=JV1EFDhxn87uCunbEnGlkCX/wqyzKQ5YLP13WrnW0hd+BW6IWUQ+oHbcseL9ZNG+fn z3lHSQxri8wGfX56T4CjZNWLsi7zxdD8DQ8F+uutivO5fvO4ooCorZVMIiZ+sD3k8P8c dKNdQqm/4XComJMNlOa+ey25+m2TRjkKr/rUEQPVv6kaEMIDAv9UcwmFh2skDjCR6FNI L1JjPSOakNDowEj3BAR1p2WLPywE4Va8wrlJyqfMUFfHyPSnCPvqSN3OfD4pSinBf0Pm 3CabJjZ/1t3P0HwHwj+BX2DjX5NI7TUG+2YGZeKcPYCbh91c8oKlb9lRIl0zqbG+i72U IYHA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id f83mr89833955iod.189.1452292521955; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:35:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:35:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:35:21 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: A7bqaID0uWGi5iYKRG7bV52lkbM
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Sam Hartman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [abfab] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application Bridging, Federated Authentication Beyond \(the web\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 22:35:23 -0000

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.)


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Sam Hartman
<> wrote:
>>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Leiba <> 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.