Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts

大岩寛 <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp> Thu, 07 July 2016 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
X-Original-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF712D759 for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=aist.go.jp
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 DP53UDV4yHxM for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-os2jpn01on0056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.92.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE7DD12D7D6 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aist.go.jp; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=iKc1fumfwupEiPVpn7gK+gg61Sa4v6StNRu09ub5C5k=; b=F/Zhyd3heX5lyg18qqpUWWqdERkZ8xbmGcLUG0kPmRM3r/uU6ZKBzlm0V32CNhGY/YPxmwFhGSmRCqJBXDKRJWBx9dqT9AVlDjB4eowKt1kwL/mCNHMmjH9aIrT/UCqQZhMaTjR2Yl+OA1lH3Ru6jF/ASsWryUdVOu6rhnV1FW4=
Received: from TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.157.18) by TY1PR01MB0587.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.157.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.534.14; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:00:47 +0000
Received: from TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.157.18]) by TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.157.18]) with mapi id 15.01.0534.020; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:00:47 +0000
From: =?utf-8?B?5aSn5bKp5a+b?= <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
Thread-Index: AQHRuENrc1e38ZKqGkCihIB/WT6FWZ/vH9GAgBpU3/CAAGU6AIAAFaAAgAADnICAADrUAIAAAhyAgABCigCAAsUN4IAAEUwAgAAGtIA=
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:00:47 +0000
Message-ID: <TY1PR01MB0588849E1C10B79F7C1386FAA03B0@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2DBE893A-434D-4B67-BF12-AEFBDE7A23B7@gmail.com> <32b9df1f-b61d-405e-d935-5d964d9acbb6@gmx.de> <TY1PR01MB0588EA2490634AD993244DF1A0390@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> <084b1a6f-3d32-ef37-da7c-7ed6d958974c@gmx.de> <A4419C58-1777-4A03-9390-6C5EA4412BF2@gmail.com> <2ae31156-2a49-3cf4-9ba2-36bb8d24abb1@gmx.de> <783B6CFB-2522-4144-B883-2D83F1689EFF@gmail.com> <f5ffc228-29d4-3f27-ce0b-c71ebfdb862f@gmx.de> <24F1DDCD-43CC-4FCD-9D4A-4EFF3DBFE981@gmail.com> <TY1PR01MB058843FAF08BE3DA6E7E130DA03B0@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> <79D64C1B-5A5F-4AFB-854D-99CCC94A2459@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <79D64C1B-5A5F-4AFB-854D-99CCC94A2459@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=y.oiwa@aist.go.jp;
x-originating-ip: [219.67.14.212]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 02a34f8a-057e-4e6c-a838-08d3a6777a91
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; TY1PR01MB0587; 6:rB7rynG8Ay+WrsCIQy4fABGsNmUOwSTzdjGC4bpvTDP6Fw947xVcdyz5gqPS90C8+LsxkCV2nW2Lfmp/9GL9bxmHcr8WG5pEgTHvdBbkLnaao9S27Pf53gCHqtGjnRs+LqBmPRwtNkvHumlZ5U12Wq5mVCuhhp6I/3NjpX1ArSigiceRCtzIZKHBUMU+d5zGa1/eXy3Oj2HQh2Lcr8HygdCzGUvXtFaWo07/ruoLgyTU5RNAiMvnzeDPIMGR+ZMXysmxg8NBrMbN9M5eWcAM67wPmFFT2WFDcmtzSmsh/RoU8fPRByEiog2RCCUcKJlL45hVWyp39ZePSl5U8BmvWw==; 5:fPh/sjpJ3J9Fh5qLZkH1MycPm43PFr6QxqksQZ1cS/3sgotPggcT3TLKlhGu6vsDT3VHhXpghdDfsYNqJBPWXG7RcvlABqvny3wIpBktdWN8WlDALi3VrqPgZYOnJ/02dmP4ICroi5qI4+HrEOdLMA==; 24:T+X3Jdzqt61PIOiOdCP+gzqLEWUhzcsDAB8HWKYhoO0pmzKuvcSToqwI+I80A8a9BjzG7QdTvXCs+zTmoPIS3rxYLhv5vPF7fn4VSwpbmVI=; 7:QWTMffRZUnblQyihko+netlRrJcbdXAPxq4gYpZ4UgP3BiwfTUyeiYq8UN9Qg/dvjBQF5CSFtrGhu88p4/GrxO+dBbU01YL136/PKqYQuxLjIV6OiGOMJiBmZD+VnymXpxoveb4R2Vh+jjSlhoC2OLtdg3Q5kHqir7FGBcF+PFi8sz5IvSQskHSEYz6oSSgA8Al0aiGnn6tNgUX2pWCBVVk0wTEJDrERqz4iJBg7wPou5uJ/jKrlnZc/i+sVF63k
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:TY1PR01MB0587;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <TY1PR01MB05877BBDFA94E795F3C88494A03B0@TY1PR01MB0587.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(26323138287068);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026); SRVR:TY1PR01MB0587; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:TY1PR01MB0587;
x-forefront-prvs: 0996D1900D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(199003)(13464003)(377424004)(377454003)(24454002)(106356001)(106116001)(76176999)(54356999)(66066001)(50986999)(305945005)(105586002)(101416001)(86362001)(85182001)(5002640100001)(122556002)(77096005)(33656002)(15975445007)(11100500001)(7696003)(3280700002)(3660700001)(2900100001)(76576001)(2950100001)(189998001)(87936001)(93886004)(74482002)(4326007)(92566002)(9686002)(7736002)(7846002)(5003600100003)(2906002)(74316002)(19580405001)(81156014)(10400500002)(6116002)(102836003)(3846002)(586003)(81166006)(8936002)(110136002)(97736004)(8676002)(19580395003)(68736007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:TY1PR01MB0587; H:TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: aist.go.jp does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: aist.go.jp
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jul 2016 15:00:47.5365 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 18a7fec8-652f-409b-8369-272d9ce80620
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TY1PR01MB0587
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/0DYC3eW01Lcb6nRy7dqU6h1fLpU>
Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
X-BeenThere: http-auth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP authentication methods <http-auth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-auth>, <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/http-auth/>
List-Post: <mailto:http-auth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-auth>, <mailto:http-auth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:01:09 -0000

The situation is the same with the mutual document.
If any changes are required to the httpauth-extension.
the same changes will be to the auth-mutual.

-- 
Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.       Leader, Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
                                  Information Technology Research Institute
    National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
                      Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>jp>, <yutaka@oiwa.jp>
OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoav Nir [mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:35 PM
> To: 大岩寛 <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
> Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Definitely submit the revised draft. At the conclusion of this thread, we can
> decide whether to proceed with RFC 5987, wait for 5987bis with the document
> in the working group, or proceed with the document and have it wait for the
> 5987bis in the RFC editor’s queue.
> 
> Just one question: This thread has been about the -extension document. The base
> mutual document also references RFC 5987. Will that need any updates (except
> changing the RFC number in the reference), or is that document fine the way
> it is?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Yoav
> 
> > On 7 Jul 2016, at 5:23 PM, 大岩寛 <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Yoav,
> >
> > I have not yet have enough information to discover how we should do
> > with RFC5987bis, including three options:
> > 1) Keep referring to current RFC5987 until next possible revision,
> > 2) Wait for bis, or follow it in IETF LC, or unlikely (hopefully,)
> > 3) Rethink of the WG decision on RFC5987 and go back to WG discussion.
> > However, nothing of above plans will prohibit me to submit the revised
> > drafts before the "submission lockout period".
> > So, I'll submit the revised drafts
> > with keeping references to RFC5987 as it is currently.
> > If we later decide to make change at this moment (with a few weeks
> > delay), let us consider it just as intermediate drafts, and I'll
> > re-submit the more-revised drafts just after the lockout period.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.       Leader, Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
> >                                  Information Technology Research
> Institute
> >    National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
> >                      Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>jp>,
> > <yutaka@oiwa.jp>
> > OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405
> > 46B5]
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: http-auth [mailto:http-auth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav
> >> Nir
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 4:15 AM
> >> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> >> Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 6:17 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-07-05 17:09, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 2:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2016-07-05 13:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >>>>>> I’m not sure I follow what kind of coordination is needed here.
> >>>>>> IMO the
> >> -extension document is ready to go to IETF LC (after the authors make
> >> the necessary changes you’ve already discussed). I think it’s going
> >> to be past the IESG before 5987bis is ready. Do you see any need to
> >> make this document depend on 5987bis instead of 5987? Will making
> >> this change require any changes to the ABNF in the document?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, IMHO it would require changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. Any chance you and the authors can get the changes done before
> >>>> Friday’s
> >> deadline?
> >>>
> >>> Very unlikely on my side.
> >>
> >> So what kind of changes are we talking about?  Just the ABNF block,
> >> or a bunch of surrounding text?
> >>
> >> The reason I’m asking is that I think if it’s just the ABNF we can
> >> progress the document with a note to the AD that the ABNF will need
> >> an update, and finish that during IETF last call. Otherwise we’re delaying
> by another 3-4 weeks.
> >> Of course, considering how long this has been in process 3-4 extra
> >> weeks are no big deal, but why procrastinate if we don’t have to?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Yoav
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> http-auth mailing list
> >> http-auth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-auth