Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-12

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 11 December 2015 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A766A1A90CC; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:30:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XGCnUzqO92OZ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EBEA1A9055; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063CABE56; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NYIKK4UnRP8; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:29:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from webmail2.scss.tcd.ie (falcon.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.12]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3911EBE51; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:29:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1449858599; bh=G2QKCkURiX/FJ4zikk2DOIy/og+vOKCFGqbs+MyU0dY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NpRO5z0V9sNiI1KBjYQVHjb2eypp4jSVoeV3ElCB69PEiw+mUSMYMW/6j/3uaWC4L wD3jEqVN76ME5r12EAbasUwyDJ3ZfpFjNFR8RD0hLcvlwSwH/l47ANY6lsdXd8uVqo v+evXfa2cgTU7ZW6lc4jaipTwVpbe9Yda55xu/a8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:29:59 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>
Mail-Reply-To: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <7E71E4EC-AC2C-46A3-9850-85CF6B2FF6AC@cisco.com>
References: <06b101d12dd7$423eb740$c6bc25c0$@gmail.com> <56692A72.1050403@um.es>,<5669771C.9090208@cs.tcd.ie> <7E71E4EC-AC2C-46A3-9850-85CF6B2FF6AC@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <57661d459209d9a8e3a9d8f1e0376f9f@scss.tcd.ie>
X-Sender: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_eRjAkORd3BCodo9Z5mcLH0q67M>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Alejandro_P=C3=A9rez_M=C3=A9ndez?= <alex@um.es>, draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:30:06 -0000

On 11-12-2015 18:10, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng) wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>>>
>>>> 2.In general I was wondering why this is an Informational 
>>>> document. It
>>>> defines procedures and has normative language.
>>>
>>> That sounds like kind of an unfortunate bug. For some reason, it 
>>> changed
>>> from Standards Track to Informational between versions -00 and -01.
>>> However, we want it standards-track with a normative downreference 
>>> to
>>> radsec. Can it be done at this moment or does it require a more 
>>> complex
>>> process?
>>
>> Hmm. The shepherd write-up says informational is correct. If the WG
>> chairs want to, we can re-spin the IETF LC. But this has been so
>> long in the process and has slowly so I'd prefer to not do that
>> unless someone really cares, and it makes a difference.
>>
>> For now, I've kept this on the Dec17 IESG telechat as informational
>> but if needed we can push it into the new year.
>
> The authors unanimously prefer standards track, so I'm afraid a new
> last call is required.

Fair enough. Will you check quickly with the WG then I'll start that?

Ta,
S.


>
> Klaas