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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sam -- thanks for the follow-up.  No worries: with your comments
and Alejandro's, I'm fine with leaving it as it is, so let's just
carry on.

And for what it's worth, I think we have ample evidence that repeating
last calls for this sort of thing *never* adds any value, and I'm
working on getting some folks to write an update to 3967 that changes
that (giving discretion to the IESG on the matter, rather than
*requiring* that it always be called out in the last call notice).
But that hasn't gotten off the ground yet; I'll have to poke people
and see if we can get it moving.

Barry

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sam Hartman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>