Re: [sasl] New Work Items - Kitten Recharter

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

>
> We are looking for consensus on whether the Kitten WG should adopt the
> following drafts as work items:
>
>     draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec
>     draft-mills-kitten-sasl-oauth
>
> You can respond to lists (kitten or SASL), but please indicate your
> decision regardless if you are for or against the proposal.

I support the inclusion of both drafts in our milestones.  To answer
Alexey's reaonable question, draft-wierenga-ietf-sasl-saml attempts to
rely on existing infrastructure as much as possible, both on the client
and on the IdP, while requiring some substantial changes to the RP.
  draft-cantor-ietf-sasl-saml-ec requires more substantial changes to
the client, but keeps SAML within the application protocol.  The
implication of the design choices relate more to how actual
authentication gets performed between the SASL client and the IdP.
 Existing IdPs make use of HTTP/HTML and unstructured exchanges for that
authentication.

In Scott's draft, that occurs in step (4).  This requires the client to
have substantially more capabilities than it might have today with
either a fully functional web browser either built into the application
or tied to the application via some form of IPC with sufficient semantic
abilities to discern when to move through step 4 to step 5, but at the
same time, provides for an overall simpler protocol flow than the
document that Klaas and I have put forth.  

Discovery is also handled in Scott's draft.  That is something that we
should consider incorporating into the other.

Eliot