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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 11 January 2016 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 5B15E1A01A5; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SlzV4-c_mTe; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37FFB1A0151; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id z14so120335853igp.0; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eXu7NKUJRli6SkLFDPqSDOT93xUaWqNbf+McDN6434Q=; b=mKNNbJBhJjrlv8AfOQlkDR2pqxgv3D4QdhCHWMkrve9Kat1HxoiQypwecgy4XWW62l b130H6YKWyk0giMnpbWLZKb6hK87qRsHLBy3YKdpFhH6qr3hReFR7iZ98R7B/auqvI17 Anf16os8Cq6XKThANGNNervrWDKObeg6Zt41/Vh7RwngRgHpHT1bt7bni2pGCOVQ3l6O tLhE1OkQuubygyIJ5pRs5gj9XTxLnRBEkN7BM6AwD6j/hHrJJxyYOPkDxbGoi8vSV5zc Jm89FmpuuilqZzfjo4E9xe9Rzg7rDFFlkjf8G5iKT5eaYwLGlR05Lwd+xlSXu/Zp9m3T SOpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.183.11 with SMTP id ei11mr12117481igc.81.1452524143660; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.117.83 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <tsloacsdwl4.fsf@mit.edu>
References: <20160107014638.22674.62959.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56936B91.4040508@um.es> <CALaySJLUDGyzNq7_P+sUZ6-DZ0mAcEQ6ztzLrjA79UE5nPmDMQ@mail.gmail.com> <tsloacsdwl4.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:55:43 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: kRkhbIzz3hTVORvXFj7iG99K4fs
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+vPH+QbLntjmXN+bj3efhthtemJtG93YkNM9v290gGTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abfab/eqAZFkB9T0BhezaCYcNZMlsdoR0>
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 14:55:45 -0000

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
<hartmans@painless-security.com>; 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
>