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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response, Alejandro, and for addressing my comments.

Barry

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Alejandro Pérez Méndez <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Barry,
>
> thanks for your comments. See my responses inline, please.
>
> El 07/01/16 a las 02:46, Barry Leiba escribió:
>>
>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Because abfab-arch defines the terms "Client", "Relying Party", and
>> "Identity Provider", I think abfab-arch should be a normative reference.
>
>
> As per the discussion you had with Sam, I see your point and I'm not against
> it.
> On the other hand, I think that the terms "Client", "Relaying Party", and
> "Identity Provider" are common enough to don't require readers to go to the
> reference to understand them, specially when the document already contains a
> terminlogy table that matches these terms with their SAML and RADIUS
> correspondences.
>
>>
>> -- Section 3 --
>>
>>     The RADIUS SAML binding defined in Section 4 of this document uses
>>     two attributes to convey SAML assertions and protocol messages
>>     respectively [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
>>
>> Nit: "respectively" is out of place here, and should be removed.  You
>> would only use "respectively" if you named the two attributes ("...uses
>> two attributes, SAML-Assertion and SAML-Protocol, to convey SAML
>> assertions and protocol messages, respectively.").
>
>
> Right, thanks. Probably the result of an edit to remove the attribute names
> from that paragraph.
>
>>
>> -- Section 7.3.5 --
>>
>>     If issued by the Identity Provider, the Relying Party MUST process
>>     the <samlp:Response> message and any enclosed assertion elements as
>>     described in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
>>
>> "If issued" is dangling, and  makes it look like the Relying Party is
>> issued by the Identity Provider.
>>
>> NEW
>>     If a <samlp:Response> message is issued by the Identity Provider,
>>     the Relying Party MUST process that message and any enclosed
>>     assertion elements as described in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
>> END
>
>
> Thanks, the text you've provided sounds much more clear. I will include it.
>
> Best regards,
> Alejandro
>
>
>>
>> -- Section 11.2 --
>> Thank you; this section is well done.
>>
>>
>