Re: [GNAP] Subject Identifiers draft - request for volunteers

Denis <> Tue, 01 March 2022 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAF83A07CD for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 03:37:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.129
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCfySSOpZvSk for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 03:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB4B3A07B4 for <>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 03:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPA id P0obnUXIKuCn2P0ocnOnlR; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:37:17 +0100
X-ME-Helo: []
X-ME-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:37:17 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------wmd5QdRYmEXkCiBRCIqkLTQW"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 12:37:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Content-Language: en-GB
References: <>
From: Denis <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Subject Identifiers draft - request for volunteers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 11:37:48 -0000

Hi Yaron,

This WG is not really active any more. Apparently there is a lack of 
participation. Adding one or more editors is unlikely to solve the problem.
The key question to be raised is how many people who are registered in 
the WG are still interested.
A key point is to understand in which contexts this specification would 
be used.

I have been one of the very few who has posted a message to this WG: my 
message was posted on 2021-05-27.
It raises important concerns which are related to subject identifiers. 
It proposes solutions to address them.
I would appreciate to have a technical discussion about it, but if no 
one is still interested in this work item, this is unlikely to happen.


Note: Archive of the mailing list:

> Hi,
> The GNAP protocol has a dependency on the Subject Identifiers draft [1] from the SecEvent working group. That draft has been around for a long time and in fact has just been updated by the authors (much appreciated!), but we’ve had a hard time moving it across the finish line at the SecEvent group. I am looking for one or more volunteers to join as co-authors, preferably people who are *not* authors on the GNAP protocol.
> The Subject ID draft should go into an abbreviated second WG last call, and then assuming everything goes well, into IETF last call and IESG review. The main task of the new author(s) would be to address IESG comments in a timely manner and move the draft to publication.
> If you are new to the IETF, this is a great opportunity to familiarize yourself with its publication process.
> Please get back to me or Leif for any additional details.
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> [1]