Re: [GNAP] Design team

[Dick Hardt <[e-mail]>]

Kathleeen, you keep talking about why we started with XYZ, I'm stating that
the goal of the design team was NOT to choose a starting document, but to
select the best ideas and create an outline.

"We expect the design team to decide on a solution outline that combines
> the best of both proposals, and present this outline by Sep. 15"[1]
>
> [1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/By7tDkJBxhmHbP7vKwubC9eW38I/

I find your comment on me "getting my way" is dismissive of having a
civil conversation.

ᐧ

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:16 AM Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Your interpretation of events is in contrast to mine.  I’m not going to
> argue further with you as there’s no point unless you get your way.  There
> were 2 detailed reviews from the design team that preferred Justin’s
> document as a starting point, none with yours.  His was preferred for
> several reasons including ease of understanding and aligned better with
> IETF protocol specs for cross area review.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 11:26 PM, Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
> I don't see how your take is different in the process you chose to take,
> vs the process I had suggested in the WG meeting, and the chairs had set as
> the goals of the design team. Despite the WG not adopting your
> recommendation to start with XYZ, you chose to ignore the WG and chairs and
> start with the XYZ document.
>
> wrt. RESTful design patterns, that was a design pattern that XAuth
> introduced and that XYZ has adopted. The one comment about a suggestion I
> made that was not RESTful -- I was asking for the parameters in JWS signing
> to be moved from the JWS header to the JWS payload -- my suggestion was not
> making it any less RESTful than it already was. Inaccurate representations
> like this contributed to the tension in the meetings.
>
> One of your criticisms of XAuth was the use of "non standard IETF
> language" such as "sequence" -- a term that is now used numerous times in
> the draft.
>
> I hope you had a RESTful vacation!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:34 PM Kathleen Moriarty <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> My take is very different, Dick.  I am starting a 2 week vacation and
>> will not be spending it arguing with you on the list.
>>
>> Multiple reviews pointed to Justin’s document as a better starting point,
>> not just mine.  Your use case cases can be met and some of what you were
>> asking for did not follow RESTful design patterns.  They really don’t map
>> to a future protocol well.  You may need to write extension documents, but
>> your goals can be met.
>>
>> Many calls were difficult as displayed in your message.  Justin did a
>> great job handling the weekly tension and ensuring options were included
>> for WG discussion when agreement was not met.  He’s completely amenable to
>> following the WG and chairs decisions.  His document was also easier to
>> follow and aligned better with numerous IETF documents.  Please do keep
>> Justin on as an editor. As you can see from the draft, there are many areas
>> where WG input on decision points are requested.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Tl;dr: Given where we are in the WG, I am not opposed to the WG adopting
>> -14, but I propose someone other than Justin be the document editor.
>>
>> I was on the design team to work on the goals set out by the chairs [1]:
>>
>> "We expect the design team to decide on a solution outline that combines
>> the best of both proposals, and present this outline by Sep. 15"
>>
>> Surprisingly, Kathleen convened the design team with her recommendation
>> to start with the XYZ document with Justin as editor, and add in the
>> diagrams from XAuth. The rest of the design team had an opportunity to
>> express their concerns and Justin edited the document. In other words, I
>> had to convince Justin to change the document, rather than the design team
>> comparing and contrasting the proposals and selecting the best parts. I
>> expressed my concerns with our AD, and decided to continue participating in
>> the design team. We did make some progress on a number of issues thanks to
>> the hard work of Fabien, Justin, and Mike -- but many issues have been
>> punted to the WG.
>>
>> Justin has poured tons of energy into this project, and to his credit he
>> was a good editor at times, but there are areas where he was unwilling to
>> deviate from his vision.
>>
>> I am concerned about a repeat of what happened in OAuth 2.0: Erin had the
>> pen and had strong views that often were not aligned with the rest of the
>> WG. A good example was Erin's distaste for bearer tokens. He factored that
>> out of the core document, which we are now adding back in with OAuth 2.1.
>> Anyone that participated in the WG saw the issues this had.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that Justin is Erin, but I think a more neutral editor
>> of the core document will allow us to make progress more quickly.
>>
>> /Dick
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/By7tDkJBxhmHbP7vKwubC9eW38I/
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:04 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Kathleen, and thanks to Dick, Mike, and Fabian for all their
>>> hard work and discussion as well. This draft contains aspects of XYZ and
>>> Xauth, and introduces some new elements and pieces as well. As you'll see,
>>> there are many identified issues and decisions to be made, but even then I
>>> believe it hangs together fairly cohesively already thanks to the good
>>> engineering effort and discussion that's gone in so far.
>>>
>>> Nothing in the document is final, of course. To me, this document
>>> represents a good starting point for working group discussion and
>>> decisions, +1 for its adoption.
>>>
>>> - Justin
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: TXAuth [[e-mail]] on behalf of Kathleen Moriarty [
>>> [e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 6:55 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [GNAP] Design team
>>>
>>> Greetings!
>>>
>>> The design team has now come to a close.  While there were too many
>>> issues to resolve to all design team member satisfaction, great effort was
>>> put in to describe decision points for the WG to ease and hopefully speed
>>> the working group process.  As such, I am requesting that the WG adopts
>>> this version (14 of XYZ) and works together to fully develop a single
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-transactional-authz/
>>>
>>> A tremendous thank you to each of the design team members for your hard
>>> work and walking the fine line of when to put a stake in the ground (that
>>> the WG can always change once adopted) and listing our options for decision
>>> points to ease the WG process.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Kathleen
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile device
>>>
>>> --
>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>