Re: [abfab] AD review of eap-applicability

If my understanding is correct we agreed that only section 3 of draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability updates the EAP applicability statement in [RFC3748].  

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba

-----Original Message-----
From: abfab-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:abfab-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:17 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: <abfab@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [abfab] AD review of eap-applicability

Folks,

Given Sam's response and that nobody disagreed I think it'd be best to update the updates thing before IETF LC so I've marked this as revised I-D needed.

Please yell at me if that's wrong. Even better, shoot out that revised I-D and I'll start IETF LC.

Thanks,
S.

On 05/15/2013 11:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes:
> 
>     Stephen> - Should this update 3748? Current IESG thinking (i.e.
>     Stephen> want something else and someone will badger you:-) is that
>     Stephen> if a reader of 3748 really ought also read this, then this
>     Stephen> should update 3748; if its ok for a reader of 3748 to not
>     Stephen> have to read this, then this shouldn't update 3748. I'd
>     Stephen> guess that this should update 3847 but am ok if you say
>     Stephen> not. I'd like to just double check that before IETF LC
>     Stephen> since someone might want a 2nd LC otherwise.  (Safest is to
>     Stephen> include it during IETF LC and the updates thing could
>     Stephen> always be dropped later.)
> 
> This was brought up in WGLC.
> The conclusion  I recall is that we should update 3748 and the 
> document would be changed prior to IETF LC:-)
> 
>     Stephen> - Mentioning the WG name in the abstract is usually wrong
>     Stephen> since the WG will go away. Maybe say what abfab does
>     Stephen> instead, e.g. like the charter does and say "...usage of
>     Stephen> the EAP protocol as part of a federated identity mechanism
>     Stephen> for use by Internet protocols not based on HTML/HTTP, such
>     Stephen> as for instance IMAP, XMPP, SSH and NFS."  (Same for later
>     Stephen> mentions of the wg.)
> 
> 
> I think we're calling the overall architecture ABFAB as well.  so I 
> think we're mentioning the technology (which is gss-eap, plus a way of 
> describing naming of attributes, plus SAML rules for RADIUS, plus 
> potentially things in the future) not the WG.
> 
>     Stephen> - s4, RECOMMENDS use of [I-D.ietf-emu-crypto-bind], doesn't
>     Stephen> that make it a normative reference?
>     Stephen> _______________________________________________ abfab
>     Stephen> mailing list abfab@ietf.org
>     Stephen> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
> 
> Except the emu draft doesn't define a protocol.
> It describes a mechanism you  might want to include when designing EAP 
> methods.
> 
> So perhaps recommends using that mechanism when available in EAP 
> methods or some such.
> 
> --Sam
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
abfab@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab