From atul@sgnl.ai Fri Mar 15 01:03:37 2024 Return-Path: X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EDBC14F697 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sgnl.ai Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmUbO7H0b7uH for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3385C14F712 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-5d3907ff128so1437740a12.3 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sgnl.ai; s=google; t=1710489812; x=1711094612; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5o6/aGCgyaVzAJG4teoDD8Xe9sm59HAjpsary9HYqYQ=; b=oKsIzBlSpOLgL97coFMiE4zwvxfFC1odWE4v7WaoldqWwJsn2wkchcH7yIfFUcpuUB xycWBQBKG9iw8TQqjyrZKQ5eRTJnP9Evgm6m97o5OL+jAkocPxHm4W687BxbWLUKwuZL SAa8uf7RZLWDuHswJbqu76TRCyKwcc2CX0MZLxqp+uGjPiLAOTp3Kfyk3kwMPBPuHjF5 IgIn69vxA4kJSiQ1+TOsvLewhnbx1fpli58ghOlx+vQAjZkNnllrBg6Tr3N5Tth+ElHB jtKloS2rM6yLL9ASdZqiHRr1t+WjTuD5Z4X95gBgqOD52kdr1WNq0zXFIiZT8wPzSXBT I/jQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710489812; x=1711094612; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5o6/aGCgyaVzAJG4teoDD8Xe9sm59HAjpsary9HYqYQ=; b=oHcWHWfAajOnPBBstsy408p4snEoQNldJyaqtZF+kbBaAkG3Umk4HZUMHQhbsewxC4 L/bpxjuY82QrqXrhLoHKM2bc7SX0bhvczrwrMLGFGvQsxXR7BdSGTvDd/QGO6GQF1nP4 4AVXjzw7iytHLYrWhh74yQEIqu0kSvwUDz8HiVGZOX2HUmP4JVmhZYjqKaZAcGd/zoSu +0X15YbcdlstJ0XGn6quYcZiXBgCq1fHoSMyVkg5B3Dv9aC4nNxpZSOpaxpN+laGiLaE RyBpuRstPTESFB9bBlKaSqEcM65VViiLfOEPE8deLwo+lzDRdip4c33OqUhgF0WB1lbf 6Tyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx0cqP6Xx5RzFBPqqsvyWhFNEFlBZqG3l/zdlsMRWhKeIcqOw4g UaDBRSCked91hqNZ1r76EuN9SjvRIV9R6ftHBNdExx06LtiTUxGnNh5zPLuBQwjnPPBnNnNhoYT EV1FyGWqXwuV8cozz752yelzeBvwBIHxhCPhYTqnNgwSoRxwr9qk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHFD56y8xT/l+nJwxS9rI/kRjt/nAiPoGmWaU58C0+TR4USD7kEFPHYO5AvofXvhdJtwLQwONxLIjn58s2Rdkg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:548a:b0:1a3:3fbd:f859 with SMTP id i10-20020a056a20548a00b001a33fbdf859mr4385952pzk.2.1710489811675; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Atul Tulshibagwale Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:33:15 +0530 Message-ID: To: saag@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e091d0613ae71a1" Archived-At: Subject: [saag] Fwd: Two topics of discussion for the Sec Dispatch session X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:03:37 -0000 --0000000000009e091d0613ae71a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" FYI, not sure if this belongs here, or in the secdispatch mailing list (to which I've sent this email earlier) There are a couple of topics for which I have been seeking answers. I don't know if these are appropriate topics for the saag session next week. I will be attending remotely, and can prepare a presentation for the second point below if required. 1. *Errata to RFC 9493* There is an errata required for RFC9493 (Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens). The errata request is here . The errata requests a change to the registry created by this RFC, and there was consensus on the mailing list that the errata should be accepted and the appropriate change reflected in the IANA registry. However, since the WG is completed, there was no clear identification of how to go about making these changes. If there is discussion required on this topic, we should have it in the meeting in Brisbane. 2. *New PushPull Delivery Proposal* While we currently have specified Push delivery (RFC 8935 ) and Poll delivery (RFC 8936 ), we are seeing a clear requirement in the OpenID Shared Signals Working Group (SSWG) where a Transmitter is also a Receiver, and we would like to have a way of symmetric asynchronous event delivery. I would like to propose a new spec for this, but since the WG is closed, I wanted to know how to go about doing this. I realize the date for proposing new ideas for IETF 119 is past, but I can propose it after IETF 119 and discuss it in Vancouver. The topic I would like to discuss in IETF 119 is: What is the venue to propose this new idea for a combined "push and pull" delivery mechanism? Thanks, Atul -- Atul Tulshibagwale CTO --0000000000009e091d0613ae71a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI, not sure if this belongs here, or in the secdisp= atch mailing list (to which I've sent this email earlier)

There are a couple of= topics for which I have been seeking answers. I don't know if these ar= e appropriate topics for the saag session next week. I will be attending re= motely, and can prepare a presentation for the second point below if requir= ed.
  1. Errata to RFC 9493 There is an errata required= for RFC9493=C2=A0(Subject Identifiers for Security Event Tokens). The err= ata request is here. The errata requests a change to the registry created = by this RFC, and there was consensus on the = mailing list that the errata should be accepted and the appropriate cha= nge reflected in the IANA registry. However, since the WG is completed, the= re was no clear identification of how to go about making these changes. If = there is discussion required on this topic, we should=C2=A0have it in the m= eeting in Brisbane.
  2. New PushPull Delivery Proposal While we = currently have specified Push delivery (RFC 8935) and Poll delivery (<= a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8936" target=3D"_blank">= RFC 8936), we are seeing a clear requirement in the OpenID Shared Signa= ls Working Group (SSWG) where a Transmitter is also a Receiver, and we woul= d like to have a way of symmetric asynchronous event delivery. I would like= to propose a new spec for this, but since the WG is closed, I wanted to kn= ow how to go about doing this. I realize the date for proposing new ideas f= or IETF 119 is past, but I can propose it after IETF 119 and discuss it in = Vancouver. The topic I would like to discuss in IETF 119 is: What is the ve= nue to propose this new idea for a combined "push and pull" deliv= ery mechanism?
Thanks,
Atul

--
--0000000000009e091d0613ae71a1--

Atul Tulshibagw= ale

CTO

<= span style=3D"border:none;display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;width:20px;h= eight:27px">