IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Mon, 11 January 2016 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: abfab@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: abfab@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F511A0107; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:23:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bewk7WKn4BNB; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964D21A010E; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA20209C2; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:22:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2KJNWfmyym8b; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:22:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [10.1.10.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:22:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 67B46872E7; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20160107014638.22674.62959.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56936B91.4040508@um.es> <CALaySJLUDGyzNq7_P+sUZ6-DZ0mAcEQ6ztzLrjA79UE5nPmDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:23:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLUDGyzNq7_P+sUZ6-DZ0mAcEQ6ztzLrjA79UE5nPmDMQ@mail.gmail.com> (Barry Leiba's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:05:15 -0500")
Message-ID: <tsloacsdwl4.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abfab/Czd8QJjYZgSVYy_L1i_j3wh9CTw>
Cc: abfab@ietf.org, abfab-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [abfab] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: abfab@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application Bridging, Federated Authentication Beyond \(the web\)" <abfab.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/abfab>, <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/abfab/>
List-Post: <mailto:abfab@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab>, <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:23:07 -0000

First, I care far more about publishing this document than I do about
resolving the reference type of abfab-arch.

I don't believe that you need to understand the term relying party, or
the other role terms in order to implement this spec.
I believe 7055, this spec and SAML define enough terminology that while
you might not understand the overall system and how it fits together,
you can implement this part without reading arch.

I fully agree that we could do another last call and do a RFC 3967
down-ref to arch.
I don't think it's the right thing to do even  if we can find a way to
do it without an additional last call; I think you and I probably have a
different opinion about the boundary between normative and informative
references.

I don't think a third last call would be helpful for this document.


However, so long as my input is considered, I would not try to block on
this issue; any resolution is fine with me.

--Sam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email