Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I've added text to the introduction explaining that the values are intended to provide identifiers for families of closely-related authentication methods, based on our discussion of this topic.  See the diffs at https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-07.  Hopefully this clarifies things sufficiently to satisfy the intent of your DISCUSS, Stephen.  Let me know.

I also updated the MODRNA Authentication Profile reference.

				Thanks again,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:11 AM
To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Anthony Nadalin <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)



On 07/03/17 17:17, Mike Jones wrote:
> You're right, Stephen.  Re-reading the spec, it doesn't say that, and 
> it should.  Sometimes it takes someone giving a spec a fresh read to 
> uncover things that the authors understood and intended but failed to 
> be captured in the text.  This is such a case - so thanks.
> 
> I'll add this information, which is necessary to understand the 
> intent, and then republish.

Ah good, that explains the disconnect.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> -- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:39 PM 
> To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Anthony Nadalin 
> <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The IESG 
> <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re:
> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On 06/03/17 22:34, Mike Jones wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply, Stephen.  I'll try to find better 
>> interop-producing references where possible.
>> 
>> 
>> In some cases, however, the values are intentionally intended to 
>> provide an identifier for a family of closely-related methods, such 
>> as "otp", which covers both time-based and HMAC-based OTPs.
> 
> Hmm. I don't recall text saying that in the draft, but it's possible 
> that I missed it - can you point me at that?
> 
> I do agree that if the semantics here were "some otp was used" then it 
> would not be necessary to specify exactly which OTP scheme was used. 
> But that wasn't how I read what this spec was doing. (Again, that 
> could be me getting the wrong end of the stick.)
> 
> S.
> 
> 
>> Many relying parties will be content to know that an OTP has been 
>> used in addition to a password.  The distinction between which kind 
>> of OTP was used is not useful to them.  Thus, there's a single 
>> identifier that can be satisfied in two or more nearly equivalent 
>> ways.  I consider this to be a feature - not a bug.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Similarly, there's a whole range of nuances between different 
>> fingerprint matching algorithms.  They differ in false positive and  
>> false negative rates over different population samples and also 
>> differ based on the kind and model of fingerprint sensor used.
>> Like the OTP case, many RPs will be content to know that a 
>> fingerprint match mas made, without delving into and differentiating 
>> based on every aspect of the implementation of fingerprint capture 
>> and match. Those that want more precision than this can always define 
>> new "amr" values.  But "fpt" is fine as is for what I believe will be 
>> the 90+% case.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ultimately, the RP is depending upon the Identity Provider to do 
>> reasonable things.  If it didn't trust the IdP to do so, it has no  
>> business using it.  The "amr" value lets the IdP signal to the RP  
>> additional information about what it did, for the cases in which that 
>> information is useful to the RP.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Reducing this to the point of absurdity, the RP would almost never  
>> care about the make, model, and serial number of the fingerprint 
>> reader or OTP.  Values could be defined to provide that granularity. 
>> But making those fine-grained distinctions are not useful in 
>> practice.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please consider the existing definitions in light of that reductio ad 
>> absurdum.  The existing values only make distinctions that are known 
>> to be useful to RPs.  Slicing things more finely than would be used 
>> in practice actually hurts interop, rather than helping it, because 
>> it would force all RPs to recognize that several or many different 
>> values actually mean the same thing to them.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 2:10 
>> PM To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Anthony Nadalin 
>> <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The IESG  
>> <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re:
>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Apologies - I updated the discuss ballot text [1] on Feb 28 but 
>> must've not sent it as an email or something. Anyway...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values/ballot/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
On 06/03/17 20:38, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Stephen.  The changes in draft -06 were intended to address your
>> 
>>> DISCUSS points.  Are you satisfied with these changes or are there
>> 
>>> additional changes you want?  I'm asking partly because it's a week
>> 
>>> now until the submission cutoff and if additional changes are 
>>> needed,
>> 
>>> I'd like to make them this week.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So I do think there's still work to be done, may as well copy the new 
>> ballot text here:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "
>> 
>> I think we still have the problem that the values "defined" here 
>> (e.g. "fpt") are under specified to a significant degree. RFC4949 
>> does not tell anyone how to achieve interop with "fpt" (nor any of 
>> the other cases where you refer to 4949 I think). There is therefore 
>> no utility in "defining" "fpt" as it will not achieve interop and in 
>> fact is more likely to cause confusion than interop.
>> If the solution of actually defining the meaning of things like "fpt" 
>> is not achievable then perhaps it will be better to only define those 
>> for which we can get interop ("pwd" and one or two
>> others) and leave the definition of the rest for later. (In saying 
>> that I do recall that one of the authors said that there are 
>> implementations that use some of these type-names, but the point of 
>> RFCs is not to "bless"
>> 
>> such things, but to achieve interop.)
>> 
>> "
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks, -- Mike
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Mike Jones
>> 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, February 28,
>>> 2017
>> 
>>> 6:17 PM To: Stephen Farrell
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>> Anthony
>> 
>>> Nadalin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>> joel jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The
>> 
>>> IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: 
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-val
>>> u
>>>
>>> 
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: RE:
>> 
>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Hi Stephen,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Draft -06
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-06
>> 
>>> adds references for all of the defined "amr" values.  Thanks for
>> 
>>> taking the time to have a thoughtful discussion.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> -- Mike
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1,
>>> 2017
>> 
>>> 4:45 PM To: Mike Jones
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>
>>> 
Anthony Nadalin
>> 
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; joel jaeggli 
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG
>> 
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: 
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-val
>>> u
>>>
>>> 
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re:
>> 
>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> On 02/02/17 00:35, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>>>> You can call me lazy if you want.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I don't think you're lazy:-) Were I to guess I'd guess that interop
>> 
>>> for these wasn't a priority and that we're defining them a bit early
>> 
>>> and a little too generically.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>> Some of them are so well known, such as "password" or "PIN" it  
>>>> didn't
>> 
>>>> seem worthwhile to try to track down a reference.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Sure, those are fine. The only issues would be if there's a 
>>> string2key
>> 
>>> function somewhere but I don't expect there is in this context.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>> But I'm willing to work with others to find decent references for 
>>>> the
>> 
>>>> rest of them, if you believe that would improve the quality of the
>> 
>>>> specification.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I do think it would, esp for cases where there are known different
>> 
>>> options (e.g. otp) or likely ill-defined or proprietary formats. 
>>> My
>> 
>>> guess is that some biometrics fit that latter but I could be wrong.
>> 
>>> If they do, then one runs into the problem of having to depend on
>> 
>>> magic numbers in the encodings or similar to distinguish which is
>> 
>>> really error prone and likely to lead to what our learned transport
>> 
>>> chums are calling ossification;-)
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Best wishes, -- Mike
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1,
>> 
>>>> 2017 4:31 PM To: Mike Jones
>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>
>>>> 
Anthony
>> 
>>>> Nadalin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>> joel jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The
>> 
>>>> IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: 
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-va
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>> 
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re:
>> 
>>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> On 02/02/17 00:28, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>>>>> The other case of known interop testing of "amr" values is for
>> 
>>>>> MODRNA (OpenID Connect Mobile Profile) implementations. 
>>>>> There's a
>> 
>>>>> reference to its use of "amr" values in the spec.
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Yeah, iirc, that one seemed ok (assuming the reference tells me 
>>>> what
>> 
>>>> code to write which I assume it does).
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> I'm still not seeing why some do have sufficient references and
>> 
>>>> others do not.
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Is there some difficulty with finding references or something?
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> S
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Nadalin Sent: 
>>>>> Wednesday,
>> 
>>>>> February 1, 2017 4:27 PM To: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>>
>>>>> 
Mike Jones
>> 
>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>>
>>>>> 
joel jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The
>> 
>>>>> IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: 
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-v
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>> 
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: RE:
>> 
>>>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> We have interoped between FIDO authenticators vendors and Windows
>> 
>>>>> Hello
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1,
>> 
>>>>> 2017 4:24 PM To: Mike Jones
>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>>
>>>>> 
Anthony
>> 
>>>>> Nadalin
>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; joel 
>>>>> jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>> 
>>>>> The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc:
>> 
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-v
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>> 
[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG]  
>>>>> Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> On 02/02/17 00:21, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Thanks, Tony.  I can add that reference.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Stephen, the sets of initial values were chosen from those used 
>>>>>> in
>> 
>>>>>> practice by Microsoft and Google in real deployments.
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> Genuine questions: do you aim to have interop between those
>> 
>>>>> deployments? What if I wanted to write code that'd interop with 
>>>>> msft
>> 
>>>>> or google?
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> S.
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> About "otp", there are existing use cases for indicating that an
>> 
>>>>>> OTP was used.  I'm not aware of any of these use cases where the
>> 
>>>>>> distinction between TOTP and HOTP is important.  Thus, having 
>>>>>> "otp"
>> 
>>>>>> now makes sense, where having "hotp" and "totp"
>> 
>>>>>> now doesn't.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Stephen, this may seem like splitting hairs, but the registry
>> 
>>>>>> instructions for "Specification Document(s)" are about having a
>> 
>>>>>> reference for the document where the Authentication Method
>> 
>>>>>> Reference Name (such as "otp") is defined.  In all cases for the
>> 
>>>>>> initial values, this is the RFC-to-be, so the registry 
>>>>>> instructions
>> 
>>>>>> are satisfied.  If someone were, for instance, to define the 
>>>>>> string
>> 
>>>>>> "hotp", it would be incumbent on the person requesting its
>> 
>>>>>> registration to provide a URL to the document where the string
>> 
>>>>>> "hotp" is defined.  Also having a reference to RFC 4226 in that
>> 
>>>>>> document would be a good thing, but that isn't what the registry
>> 
>>>>>> instructions are about.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> All that said, I can look at also finding appropriate references
>> 
>>>>>> for the remaining values that don't currently have them. 
>>>>>> (Anyone
>> 
>>>>>> got a good reference for password or PIN to suggest, for
>>>>>> instance?)
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> -- Mike
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Nadalin Sent:
>> 
>>>>>> Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:10 PM To: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
Mike Jones
>> 
>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
joel jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>> 
>>>>>> The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: 
>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-
>>>>>> v
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject:
>> 
>>>>>> RE: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> NIST asked for the addition of IRIS (as they are seeing more use 
>>>>>> of
>> 
>>>>>> IRIS over retina due to the accuracy of iris)  as they have been
>> 
>>>>>> doing significant testing on various iris devices and continue to
>> 
>>>>>> do so, here is a report that NIST released
>> 
>>>>>> http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/blog/2012/04/23/nist-iris-recogniti
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
n
>> 
>>>>>> -report-evaluates-needle-haystack-search-capability.html
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1,
>> 
>>>>>> 2017 2:26 PM To: Mike Jones
>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
joel
>> 
>>>>>> jaeggli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG 
>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc:
>> 
>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr-
>>>>>> v
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
[e-mail]>;
>> 
>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re: 
>>>>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
>> 
>>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> On 01/02/17 17:00, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussion, Stephen.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> To your point about "otp", the working group discussed this very
>> 
>>>>>>> point.  They explicitly decided not to introduce "hotp"
>> 
>>>>>>> and "totp" identifiers because no one had a use case in which 
>>>>>>> the
>> 
>>>>>>> distinction mattered.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Then I'm not following why adding "otp" to the registry now is a
>> 
>>>>>> good plan.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> If there's a use-case now, then adding an entry with a good
>> 
>>>>>> reference to the relevant spec seems right.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> If there's no use-case now, then not adding it to the registry
>> 
>>>>>> seems right. (Mentioning it as a possible future entry would be
>> 
>>>>>> fine.)
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> I think the same logic would apply for all the values that this
>> 
>>>>>> spec adds to the registry. Why is that wrong?
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> Others can certainly introduce those identifiers and register
>> 
>>>>>>> them if they do have such a use case, once the registry has been
>> 
>>>>>>> established.  But the working group wanted to be conservative
>> 
>>>>>>> about the identifiers introduced to prime the registry, and this
>> 
>>>>>>> is such a case.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> What identifiers to use and register will always be a balancing
>> 
>>>>>>> act. You want to be as specific as necessary to add practical 
>>>>>>> and
>> 
>>>>>>> usable value, but not so specific as to make things 
>>>>>>> unnecessarily
>> 
>>>>>>> brittle.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Eh... don't we want interop? Isn't that the primary goal here?
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> While some might say there's a difference between serial number
>> 
>>>>>>> ranges of particular authentication devices, going there is
>> 
>>>>>>> clearly in the weeds.  On the other hand, while there used to be
>> 
>>>>>>> an "eye" identifier, Elaine Newton of NIST pointed out that 
>>>>>>> there
>> 
>>>>>>> are significant differences between retina and iris matching, so
>> 
>>>>>>> "eye" was replaced with "retina"
>> 
>>>>>>> and "iris". Common sense informed by actual data is the key 
>>>>>>> here.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> That's another good example. There's no reference for "iris."
>> 
>>>>>> If that is used in some protocol, then what format(s) are 
>>>>>> expected
>> 
>>>>>> to be supported? Where do I find that spec? If we can answer 
>>>>>> that,
>> 
>>>>>> then great, let's add the details. If not, then I'd suggest we 
>>>>>> omit
>> 
>>>>>> "iris" and leave it 'till later to add an entry for that. 
>>>>>> And
>> 
>>>>>> again, including text with "iris" as an example is just fine, all
>> 
>>>>>> I'm asking is that we only add the registry entry if we can meet
>> 
>>>>>> the same bar that we're asking the DE to impose on later 
>>>>>> additions.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> And the same for all the others...
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> The point of the registry requiring a specification reference is
>> 
>>>>>>> so people using the registry can tell where the identifier is
>> 
>>>>>>> defined. For all the initial values, that requirement is
>> 
>>>>>>> satisfied, since the reference will be to the new RFC.
>>>>>>> I think
>> 
>>>>>>> that aligns with the point that Joel was making.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> Your thoughts?
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> -- Mike
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: OAuth
>> 
>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:03 AM To: joel jaeggli
>> 
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG 
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc:
>> 
>>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-amr
>>>>>>> [e-mail]>;
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re:
>>>>>>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss
>> 
>>>>>>> on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> On 01/02/17 14:58, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/17 8:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> 
>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: Discuss
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and  
>>>>>>>>> reply
>> 
>>>>>>>>> to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel
>> 
>>>>>>>>> free to cut this introductory paragraph,
>> 
>>>>>>>>> however.)
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please refer to
>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> 
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT
>> 
>>>>>>>>> positions.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>> 
>>>>>>>>> here:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values/
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> -
>> 
>>>>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>> 
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> --
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 
-----
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> This specification seems to me to break it's own rules.
>> 
>>>>>>>>> You state that registrations should include a reference to a
>> 
>>>>>>>>> specification to improve interop. And yet, for the strings 
>>>>>>>>> added
>> 
>>>>>>>>> here (e.g. otp) you don't do that (referring to section 2 will
>> 
>>>>>>>>> not improve interop) and there are different ways in which 
>>>>>>>>> many
>> 
>>>>>>>>> of the methods in section 2 can be done. So I think you need 
>>>>>>>>> to
>> 
>>>>>>>>> add a bunch more references.
>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> Not clear to me that the document creating the registry needs 
>>>>>>>> to
>> 
>>>>>>>> adhere to the rules for further allocations in order to
>> 
>>>>>>>> prepoulate the registry. that is perhaps an appeal to future
>> 
>>>>>>>> consistency.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> Sure - I'm all for a smattering of inconsistency:-)
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> But I think the lack of specs in some of these cases could 
>>>>>>> impact
>> 
>>>>>>> on interop, e.g. in the otp case, they quote two RFCs and yet 
>>>>>>> only
>> 
>>>>>>> have one value. That seems a bit broken to me, so the discuss
>> 
>>>>>>> isn't really about the formalism.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> S.
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>