Re: [abfab] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 05/01/16 18:39, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-13: Discuss
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Regarding Section 4.3.3, do we typically use IETF documents to
> normatively extend OASIS specs? Wanted to check since we try to keep an
> eye on this kind of thing when other SDOs extend/alter IETF specs.

Yes, various folks involved in OASIS SAML work reviewed this.
I think the last was Scott Cantor, who's secretary of the OASIS
security services TC that does SAML. I think we're good on that
and it's just using planned extensibility points.

> 
> And relatedly, the document's intended status is listed in the header as
> Standards Track but the shepherd write-up says: 
> 
> "Informational. It could be experimental as well, but since the
> specification of various SAML constructs lies outside the realm of the
> IETF and the definition of the 2 RADIUS attributes is not really
> experimental, informational seems the right classification."
> 
> So I'm wondering what is going on with that.

My fault. The document was initially last called as Informational,
but as a result of comments received folks wanted PS. I re-did the
last call (no further comments received) but neglected to update
the writeup.

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The use of normative MAYs in Section 9 does not seem appropriate.

The authors/shepherd can handle that:-)

Cheers,
S.


> 
>