[Anima] Adopting draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher (was Re: Resending: Call for adoption: draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Dear ANIMA WG, authors

All:

Thanks for the discussion about adoption of subject draft.
I have not seen any rejection to adoption but support.
ANIMA WG is hereby adopting the draft (see below for further justification).

Authors:

Please attempt to solve as many as possible of the textual details brought
up during the adoption call and then submit to datatracker (whenever it
permits it) a new revision as draft-ietf-anima-jose-voucher,
a chair will then accept it as a WG group draft.

All:

Wrt. to the discussions how to adopt, those seem to be subject to WG
chair decisions, so let me explain why i concluded the above:

-> ask for adoption in ANIMA or other WG based on best expertise:

   I don't think there is another WG better suited to adopt. Not only
   is JOSE concluded, but JOSE is also just one "tool" component utilized in the draft,
   whereas ANIMA is the solution group.

   In my past experience including RFC8366, its most often better to 
   let the solution WG lead work on a solution draft. Iotops is another solution
   group, but in my past tracking of it not better than ANIMA, especially given how
   ANIMA is chartered with BRSKI extensions.

   The important thing already mentioned on the thread: we need to seek review
   from whatever group is the best expert for individual component
   questions, and i think we learned how to do this better through the
   past years of ANIMA charter round 1 review than we did originally.

-> Adopt individually or make part of rfc8366:

   We had discusssions about this in the constrained BRSKI design team call,
   and it seems very much as if the target delivery lines for the rfc8366bis and
   the JOSE voucher RFC can easily be quite different, JOSE voucher for
   example something that could be done very quickly, whereas rfc8366bis
   might want to linger around longer.

   Given how our experience with ANIMA round 1 was that we coalesced a lot
   of work into way too few RFC and given how this made review very
   painfull and slow (both WG, IETF and IESG), lets try to modularize
   work better now.

   What is the worst that can happen ? We could figure out later that we wanted to
   merge the JOSE voucher work back into rfc8366bis. So what ?! No harm done!

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 06:33:35PM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> [apologies for mixing up june with july. resending to be formally correct. Thanks Bill!]
> 
> This emails starts a two week call for adoption for draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher
> The adoption call does end when July 14 has passed for everyone on planet earth.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> This draft is a core normative dependency for the ANIMA WG document
> draft-ietf-anima-brski-async-enroll (BRSKI-AE). It does effectively
> not constitute new work, but was separated out during development
> of that draft so that the jose-signed-voucher can more easily be
> referenced and reused by other work in the IETF that may not need to
> inherit, refer to the whole BRSKI-AE solution.
> 
> Toerless, for the ANIMA chairs.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 08:44:08AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > The JSON Compact Serialization is examplained in section 3.1 or section 
> > 7.1
> > 
> > examplained?? A great word, but not in my dictionary.
> > 
> > Mainly I can't understand this draft because it's way outside my expertise, but it seems necessary so I would support adoption.
> > 
> > Regards
> >    Brian
> > 
> > On 30-Jun-21 12:30, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > > 
> > > I have reposted draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher.
> > > It's very short.  Most of the document is examples.
> > > 
> > > Can we adopt this so that it does not keep brski-async-enroll from
> > > progressing when the time comes?
> > > 
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > >     > Name:		draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher
> > >     > Revision:	01
> > >     > Title:		JOSE signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
> > >     > Document date:	2021-06-23
> > >     > Group:		Individual Submission
> > >     > Pages:		15
> > >     > Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher-01.html
> > >     > Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher-01
> > > 
> > >     > Abstract:
> > >     > This document describes a serialiation of the RFC8366 voucher format
> > >     > to a JSON format is then signed using the JSON Object Signing and
> > >     > Encryption mechanism described in RFC7515.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> > >            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> -- 
> ---
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
[e-mail]