Re: [Id-event] separate push and poll delivery drafts

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Tue, 06 March 2018 17:51 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6E3DA4D0-755E-44DE-8511-204ABC27AC25@amazon.com>
References: <CAGdjJpJ1gVESHFN39CGO7QPf1u9_KUDbuRDCfhn9qVVXep6nDg@mail.gmail.com> <6E3DA4D0-755E-44DE-8511-204ABC27AC25@amazon.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 09:51:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGdjJpLHZmQ7d2zpUi6JeJS5QccuNq6W2c783cx=sRUnJu96rQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna@amazon.com>
Cc: ID Events Mailing List <id-event@ietf.org>, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, "Hardt, Dick" <dick@amazon.com>, Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, Adam Dawes <adawes@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043664f87f52570566c2181c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/id-event/dgmfROqcdCBqfFyRE6rtf6Wzciw>
Subject: Re: [Id-event] separate push and poll delivery drafts
Precedence: list

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <
richanna@amazon.com> wrote:

> +1 for splitting them into two separate drafts. It will make each one
> clearer, and remove ambiguity as to what transmitters and receivers need to
> implement.
>
>
>
> We should get this on the agenda for London. I can present it.
>

Thanks for offering to present.

Yaron, please let us know if this is on the agenda.


>
>
> --
>
> Annabelle Richard Backman
>
> Amazon – Identity Services
>
>
>
> *From: *Id-event <id-event-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Marius
> Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 8:42 AM
> *To: *ID Events Mailing List <id-event@ietf.org>, Yaron Sheffer <
> yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, "Hardt, Dick" <dick@amazon.com>, Phillip Hunt <
> phil.hunt@oracle.com>
> *Cc: *Adam Dawes <adawes@google.com>
> *Subject: *[Id-event] separate push and poll delivery drafts
>
>
>
> The current delivery draft defines both a push and a poll delivery
> methods:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secevent-delivery-02
>
>
>
> Two issues have been raised with the current draft:
>
>
>
> 1. Many implementors raised the concern that they want to implement either
> push or poll, but not both. With both delivery methods in one spec
> optionality is tricky, the suggestion was to make them MTI, but not
> mandatory to deploy which is very confusing.
>
>
>
> 2. For the draft to move to Last Call status we need implementors for all
> parts of the draft. Currently there are push implementations, but not poll
> implementations. By separating them we can allow the more mature method to
> move forward while allowing the less mature method to be refined and gain
> implementation feedback.
>
>
>
> Also, by having separate specs per delivery method we set the stage for
> other delivery methods to be added easily.
>
>
>
> Can we add this to the agenda to be discussed in London?
>
>
>
> The discussion should answer:
>
> A. Do we have consensus for splitting the delivery spec into two?
>
> B. If yes for A, can the two new specs replace the existing spec and stay
> as working group drafts (this would be ideal)? As opposed to the two new
> specs starting from scratch as I-Ds.
>
>
>
> If it helps, I am happy to send to the list two separate specs as TXT/PDF
> so we have something concrete to look at. Let me know.
>
>
>
> I will not be in London, but will try to attend remotely.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marius
>

[Id-event] separate push and poll delivery drafts Marius Scurtescu
Re: [Id-event] separate push and poll delivery dr… Richard Backman, Annabelle
Re: [Id-event] separate push and poll delivery dr… Marius Scurtescu
Re: [Id-event] separate push and poll delivery dr… Yaron Sheffer