IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Txauth] XYZ-08 vs XAuth-08

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 14 June 2020 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 653C03A0A3D for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 om_wngs56vSR for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E2D3A0A3C for <txauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 05E4hFsC021088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <txauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:43:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:43:15 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200614044315.GD11992@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <CAD9ie-uH5Zun_jhiqnoP=Gye19TVyvgqa4b+Z=a3_Y830yqLtg@mail.gmail.com> <44332CBC-83B1-411C-B518-EE2F3D030301@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-sSr3NBe=d4y02J7kYzkHnm=VRQgfbr5oH3_zfKyzcKuQ@mail.gmail.com> <A1F8BEC9-A312-494B-8CE5-BE0422CA1C91@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-vA13jLONjNwbVbvwVgKYEQCCQTtDdfg66fs7hjtoBR7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAD9ie-vA13jLONjNwbVbvwVgKYEQCCQTtDdfg66fs7hjtoBR7Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/EBCJO_5SLtAE5DGtMw99WWAeX3g>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] XYZ-08 vs XAuth-08
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 04:43:21 -0000

Hi all,

Sorry for jumping in so late (and with so little to say).  But,

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:58:03AM -0700, Dick Hardt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:29 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > These are input proposals, everything is up for debate. That’s why we’re
> > debating.
> >
> 
> Yes, we are debating the pros and cons of each proposal.

maybe it's just me, but the phrasing of "debating the pros and cons of each
proposal" makes it sound like a fixed evaluation, where we have two inputs,
tally the plusses and minuses in each's column, and at the end decide what
is "better".  I'd much rather describe what we're doing now as exploring
what properties we could have in GNAP and considering which of those
properties we believe will make for a successful protocol.
Hopefully everyone is already doing this, and I will happily apologize for
wasting your time to read this message.  But I do want to avoid this as a
question of "is X or Z a better protocol?", and ensure that we feel that we
have the freedom to do the right thing.

Thanks,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email