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

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 July 2016 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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 1D32212D768 for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 cHnDeHJ0iB_n for <http-auth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC21812D759 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n127so18926181wme.1 for <http-auth@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=aUBEWVOB7PAD0yJyyislEZW2ekqyZPT5bb1498bCELc=; b=bRlgJJAwJwcUqcwgtMsp/J6zreXU8qPiYNpgdDdBW0iY6s5VB5bM6ErQEE+8JovKc5 i7spiHTgkRVBX3wMMr7C663M8xrkj7knikPDqHq9WWgRvqnn34cJHsqmL2VcyKUcIVb5 QXj6NA4aWxxqs0Cpu1jnHZpPbqPN2vi4RZSbRqOjI5xydbj5KV+ves1eaKEjaJYy7HfJ w/6tmV6NhMLKbbpQjW3aLyp3CrnK769A6dbkPJfsnzN+7dxVPqUf9+5Ht9UsMccIv3Tw xZsoTMoDg0QYo6HPDGAi4P4UnqszomWoJ26Gq6EpEd+uTIU/D7MuIHD7l821GHesSEDI ZNfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=aUBEWVOB7PAD0yJyyislEZW2ekqyZPT5bb1498bCELc=; b=Oi3Qckh2/Y0upyQ2bKF9BKSS4Xx0o1LznJq6V3iEDwSRbK1dnMgzeUk+86XAocVar6 uWlzE/GncgyaQeM8WQX+WwMa8/ESdrqV/drluZX+NLUGRNgeGpXUW+cOMwfWHfqJPkA5 V/prSG2glYLP45yi9jojgqcAK1DCnGuXXwFe1MTq7QaZYr3qkaqK+701xzE7IjssCUUS UXYpr10hSLP1pRXs1o6XCLJwjdkZfh9CVQig3hNlRBUwnueF53pjH9NSG96Fd248WFMM LVi+IvBLYdoFPxeeIPhLsiQ9vxx83QeywaIiLcTg80LO/yjy78M1VYHAinVz57x169Sa tfUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIKx3poP1FgEeombYHoDbz3LeVtjsWwJjM0dwmTQwmdi/bilQxqX28/mrtgkKwB7A==
X-Received: by 10.28.48.130 with SMTP id w124mr3140820wmw.44.1467902107594; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.250.175] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a4sm3325874wjq.40.2016.07.07.07.35.06 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <TY1PR01MB058843FAF08BE3DA6E7E130DA03B0@TY1PR01MB0588.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:35:04 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <79D64C1B-5A5F-4AFB-854D-99CCC94A2459@gmail.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>
To: =?utf-8?B?5aSn5bKp5a+b?= <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/J0T1-AtY3o0GYpf6nU4xx2yYb_Q>
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 14:35:12 -0000

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