Re: [GNAP] Some remaining issues about the core-protocol

Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> Thu, 06 May 2021 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <denis.ietf@free.fr>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2BD3A24F9 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2021 07:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 X3a0InKv8IdJ for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2021 07:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp08.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46BB63A24F4 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2021 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] ([90.26.94.159]) by mwinf5d67 with ME id 1Stc2500U3SJSnu03StdNU; Thu, 06 May 2021 16:53:37 +0200
X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.11]
X-ME-Auth: ZGVuaXMucGlua2FzQG9yYW5nZS5mcg==
X-ME-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 16:53:37 +0200
X-ME-IP: 90.26.94.159
To: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
Cc: GNAP Mailing List <txauth@ietf.org>
References: <0536f389-ea4f-358c-7142-91d41fe8924a@free.fr> <fab7789d-2f86-4d2a-c5f4-93e0107c4ba2@free.fr> <CAGBSGjrxRij15+9pGjG-aoZoeL+-=--dsJMmGiXPye6T9eL9rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>
Message-ID: <69399062-01a3-28b2-d992-c53ba6f10bf2@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 16:53:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGBSGjrxRij15+9pGjG-aoZoeL+-=--dsJMmGiXPye6T9eL9rw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0A42BBD538E0450963C4A3FC"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/D9qcD6B3Zktk5pos0yaNq080014>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Some remaining issues about the core-protocol
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 14:53:44 -0000

Thank you Aaron,

The issue was pending closed but has been reopened by Justin.

However, when I list all issues, this is what I can see:

Issue 241 does not appear.

This is still strange.

Denis

> This issue?
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/241 
> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/241>
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 7:43 AM Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr 
> <mailto:denis.ietf@free.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Quite strange, between the time I prepared my message and now, the
>     following issue has disappeared:
>
>
>       5. Unlinkability #241
>
>     Is there a way to have a look at missing or closed issues ?
>
>     Denis
>
>>     Hello,
>>
>>     The mailing list has been pretty silent these last days.
>>
>>     Hereafter is a quick overview about some of the remaining issues
>>     classified by order of  importance (from my point of view).
>>
>>
>>       1. User choice and consent, and user notice #215
>>
>>     smartopain wote:
>>
>>     To draw a parallel: Since the publication of the EU GDPR (General
>>     Data Protection Regulation) the use of the cookies has changed.
>>     An end-user is allowed to accept them all, to deny them all
>>     (except functional cookies) and even to make some choices.
>>     The end-users can know which legal entity will collect the
>>     cookies and what for.
>>
>>     The same kind of screens should be proposed to the end-user.
>>     *From a technical perspective, specific end-points should be
>>     defined and used, since this kind of dialog is done using APIs.*
>>
>>      I agree with smartopain.
>>
>>     *2. Trust relationships **#214*
>>
>>     There are still left undefined. AS-RS trust relationships are
>>     important. RO relationships with both ASs and RSs are veryimportant
>>     but unfortunately are discussed nowhere in the current draft
>>     (except in text proposals about this issue)
>>
>>     *3. **Interaction (1) between the Client Instance and the RS as
>>     described in the first figure **#252*
>>
>>     Still on the table but not progressing.
>>
>>
>>       4. The first figure in section 1.4 should be split and
>>       revisited #192
>>
>>     This is still not done.
>>
>>
>>       5. Unlinkability #241
>>
>>     Still on the table but not progressing.
>>
>>
>>       6. Requesting User Information #197
>>
>>     This is still a hazy topic.
>>
>>
>>      Denis
>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>     TXAuth mailing list
>     TXAuth@ietf.org <mailto:TXAuth@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>
>