Re: [Txauth] Working group name

Sortof

There are other aspects besides the grant contents that may be negotiated.

In my opinion, I don't see why steps 3 and 4 are needed if in step 1 the
client is clear on what is required, and what is optional.

I do think that the following flow is useful, what I call a multi step
negotiation:

1 Client -> AS give me a
2. AS -> Client here is a = 9
3. Client -> AS I also want x (the value of a determines what else, if
anything the Client may need)
4. AS -> Client x = foo

ᐧ

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:55 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
wrote:

> if it is to be a negotiation - irrespective of the user's direct
> involvement, then then I see this sort of flow
> 1 cl to as - give me a, b c
> 2 as to cl - here is a grant to a
> 3 cl to as - no, i really need b or i can't let you in
> 4 as to cl - here is a grant to a, b
> of course an alternate is that might be
> 1 cl to as i want a, b, c and b is essential (I know justin hates that -
> but california law requires it)
>
> That is what i think negotiation is, or is some other kind of negotiation
> imagined
>
> Peace ..tom
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:36 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom
>>
>> The charter is here https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/txauth/about/
>>
>> As I understand it, one of the items we are standardizing
>> is negotiation protocol between the client and the server. How the server
>> gathers consent from the user is currently not in scope, and it is not
>> clear to me what could be standardized in the experience between the user
>> and the server that would be in scope for the IETF. Similarly for consent
>> revocation. Additionally, a user may not be involved in the
>> negotiation process at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:59 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Before we settle on this name, I must ask if the work group is prepared
>>> for the creation of a negotiation protocol, which as I understand it will
>>> include the client asking for grants, the user responding with their intent
>>> (potentially either can start the flow) and the grant jwt (jose, whatever).
>>> Presumably to complete the lifecycle some means for the user to revoke the
>>> grants and query the grants would also be provided.
>>>
>>> That seems like more of an integrated solution than prior work efforts
>>> have involved.
>>> What is the current status of the charter?
>>> Peace ..tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 PM Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you to all who participated in the two rounds of name selection.
>>>> This process has been longer than we ever expected, and I’m glad we can
>>>> declare consensus now and move forward.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the last two weeks’ worth of discussion, we have rough
>>>> consensus on a name for the proposed working group:
>>>>
>>>>         GNAP: Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
>>>>
>>>> This decision will now enable our AD to put our charter [1] on the
>>>> IESG's table, where I hope we will be approved as a working group.
>>>>
>>>> Heads up: we intend to meet in the upcoming all-virtual IETF 108 in
>>>> late July, either as a BoF or as a newly chartered WG.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>         Yaron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-txauth/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Txauth mailing list
>>>> Txauth@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Txauth mailing list
>>> Txauth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>