Re: [abfab] AD review of eap-applicability

22 maj 2013 kl. 19:18 skrev "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>:

> 
> 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.
> 

To change to 'updates' - yes.

> 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