Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode Feedback by Gurshabad Grover at REGEXT Meeting

"James Galvin" <galvin@elistx.com> Fri, 16 November 2018 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <galvin@elistx.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4598130DD4 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 9OeXB1SS69lv for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (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 8479D12DD85 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id o89so37912614qko.0 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elistx-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FgFuXGLMozFRVxLwxhWK3PUfcpNUFo6OWkLzkiGgNvA=; b=xwj5bccy9O/xQlk1yVByNj0EfuY9QUylD2mww3qK1Es9IxGY96n4eeJK/IcbO7l3Q9 pIoJ6O7uXMwk0qsUchJg2bi1GhrDhzbNFJq9ZG9XWYY18Xa6OOjn8V+RB3sjhRI9pKyz 2ukn35HHWDtvORX/qz5pxLf8tYZZzubcM52TVtsiGbEZah8ndyj5c4S8qOXMRu7wA0sG z9F1xCAcnz4zB+H6j+YW2E8Ooen0EWN/Bfyqyio/Ycl9jFSgG2UYYhyJ0bRTj94nFAbA K/GLoZCQVGPh8mjO7l5VUBiHrBsNJiNFajj2DGv9iFIEZrKKJjL3RE//bYxX/cqx6oaG OE4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FgFuXGLMozFRVxLwxhWK3PUfcpNUFo6OWkLzkiGgNvA=; b=HXf/cP58VEKFgqgOzeKbQoTIxvw41JB/JE5Gg/IUfatGabZrnutvYuAmmQuhVCSTKq Nkcn6/UB0gJ/VMOqzMpBAjrRpmWdO8fs3Ro9+FZ11J1MI8RlOszHMDZnbO2cExx+tjxG y+MGEWwxGbDraa57+rlf9G9QMcAoDwa8hMmWJBLMiKNurb6xDQykgbIq2/U/3k8b/Fol BcL6kFQgF7/NruKmUTaOqqUB76th1fiS9zY8HBko99XXWN81XX6Y55dZDLzs2NIsnWor OB0J2dMtQUUIMdKDr6sZ2m7e3xjpLr76eXb/n8ESaxZEgCnivanqNr00EblMhjwEXsGB 9znQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKt3ttEVVXf2QD4NbFgiAVYF04mcZ5ycq4dFEGdwEmGYP/ar/On vmlVDNL8U36z4lZS4F6Ud5nj4Kg4mrI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fpzp5aEgl8yI8dr/Sa55a39Wb369mqMksr3e1CqbKYL7aScdn28lYTR5COgRVMmQF4JZp02w==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:96b5:: with SMTP id a50mr10779559qvd.33.1542381508678; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [169.254.126.127] ([2601:154:c200:10:c844:919a:e83:e7e1]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d193sm15419878qka.91.2018.11.16.07.18.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:18:27 -0800 (PST)
From: James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
To: "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:18:36 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.1r5552)
Message-ID: <37EB3B40-923F-45AD-8AAF-F1CA31A35079@elistx.com>
In-Reply-To: <95290846-8A56-4BB2-ACCD-6D754C46830E@verisign.com>
References: <95290846-8A56-4BB2-ACCD-6D754C46830E@verisign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/OaYuBZcigvleiVwMnEZU0_Lq8g4>
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode Feedback by Gurshabad Grover at REGEXT Meeting
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:18:32 -0000

One comment inline below.


On 7 Nov 2018, at 1:00, Gould, James wrote:

> There were 3 draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode items brought up by 
> Gurshabad Grover that I captured from the REGEXT Meeting:
>
>
>   1.  Clarifying that it’s up to server policy to define the server 
> action taken when the verification code grace period expires
>      *   I re-reviewed draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, and it does 
> not include any language related to the action taken by the server 
> when the verification code grace period expires.  I believe this can 
> be addressed by adding the following sentence in the Verification 
> Profile section (section 2.2) of the draft:
>
>                                                               i.      
> “…the grace period by which the verification code types MUST be 
> set.  It is up to server policy what action to take if the 
> verification code type is not set by the grace period.”
>
>   1.  Ensure that the VSP does not modify the data verified after the 
> verification code is generated
>      *   I’m still not clear what the issue is here, since the role 
> of the VSP is to perform the verification and to generate the 
> verification code when the verification has been successfully 
> completed.  The draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode does not define the 
> interface used by the VSP and does not define the policies of how the 
> verification is performed.
>      *   Gurshabad, can you share your issue on the list to help 
> clarify how the draft would address it?
>   2.  Include a HRPC section in draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode
>      *   This is being discussed actively on the list, but at present 
> I believe that we can address the feedback without adding a new 
> section to the document.  If the IESG changes the default structure of 
> the document to add a new section, then it can certainly be added.

The co-Chairs would like to remind the working group that if anyone 
believes there should be an HRPC section then the action is for that 
person to propose the text that would go in an HRPC section.  The 
working group will then consider that addition as it would the addition 
of any other contribution to the document.

Regardless, as JG suggests, he will address the feedback as appropriate 
throughout the document.

Thanks,

Antoin and Jim



>
> Let me know if I missed anything and share your feedback on the list 
> for the items above.
>
> Thanks,
>
> —
>
> JG
>
> [cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
>
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>


> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext