[Anima] Re: Progress on draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 13 June 2024 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E1CC169406; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QCd5V5C_zrnD; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC96EC180B6B; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4W0Qhr3ylnznkLk; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4W0Qhr3Xzqzknx3; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:06:04 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZmsK3DsH2AaAkbS8@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DEC19D5D-E08F-4514-BF5E-115789885A2C@gmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: ZXHJWTOHON27KKHOLFPIVUAYIMUCGUNA
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZXHJWTOHON27KKHOLFPIVUAYIMUCGUNA
X-MailFrom: eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-anima.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: anima@ietf.org, anima-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Anima] Re: Progress on draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/jcz3oBbxy5mVb23EZuxAasxETFQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:anima-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:anima-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:anima-leave@ietf.org>

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:22:19PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
> 
> I am catching up on this thread and the document, so pardon me if I missed something.
> 
> I notice that draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09 has had no reviews outside of the WG, e.g. SECDIR/HTTPDIR/YANGDOCTORS etc. Is there a reason? Before I can pick up the draft, can we have some of these reviews done?

This document is primarily meant to be used for BRSKI PRM (*), which itself
successfully passed SECDIR, YANGDOCTORS and IOTDIR, so those three teams 
had seen JWS voucher and agreed on its use for BRSKI PRM. Given how little
functionality there is specified in JWS itself, and given how we had exhaustive
discuss with those three teams, we felt it wasn' worth the duplication of process.
But if you disagree, i am happy to trigger appropriate requests.

Btw: also remember all the discuss' we had around media-type registration, which i think
is the one core aspect of JWS voucher, and i think we also resolved those media-type
question the latest at IETF119.

(*) and of course we started it out as a separate document to make it easy to
be reused/referenced by any other BRSKI use-case that does not care about the BRSKI-PRM
specifics. And with the desire to avoid unnecessary libraries (like CMS), this
may actually be very useful.

> I provided some review comments as a individual contributor, but did not receive any responses. I also notice a few TODOs in the document. Is this document really ready?

See the other reply i jusst sent. The TODO where solely about the editorial
questions of how to name the relationship of this doc to the other docs,
and i hope our choices in whats to be -10 will not be contested in the
IETF reviews.

Btw: i still see JWS voucher in Robs queue (action holder), i think you would
want to fix this to yourself so that you can better control progressing it.

Thanks a lot!
    Toerless

> 
> > On Jan 9, 2024, at 8:38 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > FYI:
> > 
> > We have passed JWS on to IESG for review after the authors confirmed to us that the document(s)
> > depending on JWS voucher, predominantly BRSKI-PRM is now in a state where we are sure that
> > no further fixes on the JWS voucher document is required. JWS voucher itself went through all
> > the WG work including Matthias' Kovatsch Shepherd review last year already, and we did
> > only held it back in case our ongoing work on BRSKI-PRM would require any changes.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot folks for the progress we're starting to make, exiting documents from WG stage!
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless (for the chairs)
> > 
> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com