Re: [Id-event] SecEvent WG last calls

[Adam Dawes <[e-mail]>]

+1

Agree with Mike that subject identifier work is very important. Other specs
like RISC need subject identifiers and it will be more useful to have these
defined at IETF than having it defined as part of other specs.

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:39 AM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Per my note on the WGLC thread, I would like to see the WG continue the
> subject identifiers work until it is published as an RFC.  It’s an
> important piece in making the SecEvents work broadly useful.  There was
> additional interest in it expressed by those working on the new Continuous
> Access Evaluation Protocol (CAEP) last week during IIW.  That will be a new
> use case for the document.
>
>
>
> I would also advocate keeping the working group open until all the working
> group drafts have been published as RFCs.
>
>
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Id-event <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Yaron Sheffer
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 6, 2019 8:22 AM
> *To:* Richard Backman, Annabelle <[e-mail]>; Marius Scurtescu
> <marius.scurtescu=[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Id-event] SecEvent WG last calls
>
>
>
> Hi Marius, Annabelle,
>
>
>
> Once we have published the Poll document, the WG would have achieved its
> goal of standardizing a format and protocol(s) for event transmission. We
> polled the group and there is no interest/energy in follow-up work, so
> there’s no value in keeping the group open. Please note that the mailing
> list will remain available, as is common at the IETF for closed working
> groups.
>
>
>
> We are not closing the WG immediately. We are only proposing to wrap up
> once the Poll document has been handed to the IESG. And personally I can be
> convinced to delay closure until the docs have gone through IETF last call
> and IESG review.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> *From: *"Richard Backman, Annabelle" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 19:00
> *To: *Marius Scurtescu <marius.scurtescu=[e-mail]>,
> Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Id-event] SecEvent WG last calls
>
>
>
> I would similarly like to understand this decision considering there are
> multiple documents still in flight.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Annabelle Richard Backman
>
> AWS Identity
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Id-event <[e-mail]> on behalf of Marius
> Scurtescu <marius.scurtescu=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:14 AM
> *To: *Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Id-event] SecEvent WG last calls
>
>
>
> Why is the WG wrapping up?
>
>
>
> Anything we can still do to keep Subject ID in the WG?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:13 AM Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> We concluded last call for the Poll and the Subject ID drafts.
>
>
>
> The working group supported publication of the Poll draft. Authors, please
> address the comments that were raised in the last call, republish and we
> will request publication.
>
>
>
> There was insufficient support for the Subject ID draft. We are planning
> to wrap up the WG as soon as we push the Poll draft to the IESG, and so the
> chairs will work with the authors of the Subject ID draft and with the AD
> to publish the draft outside of the WG.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Id-event mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fid-event&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7Cde1c4971c1c54ec178a808d74a70fed6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637059721485078910&sdata=foD7S5LUPas3lRJG2YZg%2F%2FZYHU%2F%2Bp1EHWdkZPRPy2oM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Id-event mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>