Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-johansson-loa-registry-04

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/01/2012 10:57 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
> on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-johansson-loa-registry-04 Reviewer: David L. Black 
> Review Date: April 1, 2012 IETF LC End Date: April 3, 2012 IESG
> Telechat date: April 12, 2012
> 
> This draft establishes an IETF registry of SAML Level of Assurance
> (LoA) profiles; it's short and clear, although it does not contain
> any initial content for the registry - presumably that will be
> supplied after the registry is created via the expert review
> registration mechanism established by this draft.
> 
> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
> described in the review.
> 
> Major issues: (1) My major open issue concerns the last paragraph
> in the Introduction:
> 
> Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML 
> Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs
> to represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on
> their SAML XML definitions.  Use of the registry by protocols other
> than SAML or OpenID Connect is encouraged.
> 
> While this is good in principle, and one presumes that each
> registration of sets of profiles from an existing protocol will be
> self-consistent, this text also encourages other (e.g., new)
> protocols to draw upon this registry without providing any
> guidance.  I'm concerned that it's probably possible to make a
> serious mess in a new protocol by using an LoA or two from
> multiple sets of registered LoAs without paying attention to
> whether the resulting collection of LoAs is consistent or coherent
> (or even sensible) for use in a single protocol.  This concern is
> reinforced by the guidance to expert reviewers in Section 4.1,
> which effectively conveys a desire to get all of the reasonable LoA
> profiles registered here, regardless of source or consistency with
> other registered LoA profiles.
> 
> I'd like to see some guidance to protocol designers and others for
> how to appropriately select multiple LoA profiles from this
> registry in a fashion that results in a consistent and (hopefully)
> usable collection.  For example, it may be a good idea to use (or
> start with) a set of related profiles already in use by an existing
> protocol in preference to mixing/matching individual profiles from
> multiple existing protocols.  At some level, this is common sense
> advice that the presence of profiles in this registry does not
> obviate the need to apply good design judgment, but that does
> deserve to be stated.

David,

The type of consistency you look for is extremely difficult to ascertain
and often rely on mapping the underlying policies. However I do see your
point. How about this:

"Protocol designers who want to reference this registry should be aware
that registered LoAs may depend on assumptions that do not carry over
to a new protocol."

> 
> Minor issues: (2)
> 
> (1) This draft is intended to be an informational RFC, but it uses 
> RFC 2119 keywords.  That's only a good idea in exceptional
> circumstances. I suggest removing section 1.1 and replacing upper
> case MUST/SHOULD/MAY with their lower case versions or reworded
> explanations of rationale.  Most of the uses of RFC 2119 keywords
> are not protocol requirements, but requirements on IANA,
> registrants, and users of the registry for which RFC 2119 keywords 
> are not appropriate, e.g., see RFC 2119 section 6:
> 
> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with
> care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it
> is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which
> has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)

ok

> 
> (2) Section 4
> 
> OLD The initial pool of expert and the review criteria are outlined
> below. NEW The review criteria are outlined below.
> 
> The initial pool of experts is not designated by this draft.
> 

good catch

> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 3
> 
> OLD The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and
> names NEW The reserved element defined by the following ABNF
> productions represents a set of reserved values and names

ok

> 
> Section 4
> 
> The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert
> Review" policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts
> 
> Nope, the actual RFC5226 name of that well-known IANA policy is
> Expert Review (or Designated Expert), see section 4.1 of RFC5226.
> If that well-known IANA policy isn't what was intended, this is a
> serious open issue.

that IANA policy was indeed intended.

> 
> Top of p.7 The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be
> taken to imply ^ r ---------------------------------------/
> 

Here I actually want normative language. It is quite important that the
registry not be over-interpreted.

> Section 7
> 
> OLD An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust
> framework or NEW A protocol implementor MUST NOT treat the registry
> as a trust framework or
> 

I actually don't mean protocol implementor here. I mean consumer of the
registry.

> The minor issue about RFC 2119 keywords also applies to this text.
> 

This is another case where I think I disagree!

> idnits 2.12.13 did not find any nits that need attention.
> 
> Thanks, --David

thank you!

	Cheers Leif

> ---------------------------------------------------- David L.
> Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St.,
> Hopkinton, MA  01748 [phone]             FAX: +1 (508)
> 293-7786 [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone] 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk94z7cACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnczSACgtOd/Ltv7PXDMYFkdbDHBeKdB
n7UAoKNkSnBB/ZQZF96gwvKbTnXQq8Nt
=lEQ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----