Re: [Txauth] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-gnap-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

Hello Eric,

I reply as a member of this BoF. You are perfectly right when you write:

    "The charter itself is rather verbose, sometimes convoluted, and
    often directive (looking like the charter is about rubber stamping
    existing work)".

The charter is far too long and not understandable (at least to me). I 
also got the impression that its goal is to rubber stamp two existing 
proposals.

The charter is missing to explain the trust relationships and the 
privacy properties that will form the basis of the model and the major 
architecture differences
(if any) with OAuth 2.0.

I have some difficulties to understand how the replies you got are now 
making "everything clear for you", since there is no proposal to make 
the charter shorter (and clearer).

Denis

> Roman
>
> Thank you for replying to my questions: everything is clear now for me.
>
> -éric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, 24 June 2020 at 16:26
> To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-gnap-00-00: (with COMMENT)
>
>      Hi Eric!
>
>      Thanks for the review.  More inline ...
>
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
>      > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:15 AM
>      > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>      > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>      > Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-gnap-00-00: (with
>      > COMMENT)
>      >
>      > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
>      > charter-ietf-gnap-00-00: No Objection
>      >
>      > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
>      > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
>      > paragraph, however.)
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>      > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-gnap/
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > COMMENT:
>      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      > Some quick comments:
>      > - the charter itself is rather verbose, sometimes convoluted, and often directive
>      > (looking like the charter is about rubber stamping existing work)
>
>      Yes, it is long.  These words were carefully chosen after a deliberate, iterative process to gain consensus.  No existing work is getting rubber stamped -- quite the contrary, there are at least two competing proposals to form the basis of the starting point.
>
>      >- nits please
>      > expand "AS" before first use
>
>      Fixed in version 00-01.
>
>      > - missing milestones dates ?
>
>      Good point.  I'm working on getting these documented.
>
>      > - should this new WG
>      > work with others?
>
>      Yes.  The 00-01 version now contains:
>
>      "The working group will cooperate and coordinate with other IETF WGs such as
>      OAUTH, and work with organizations in the community, such as the OpenID,
>      as appropriate."
>