Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

I'm sure Paul meant to say, "is interoperable.". 

-Jim

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Grassi, Paul A. (Fed) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> WE have iGov tomorrow. I encourage those that are on the workgroup to come to discuss this, as we have made a bunch of changes (to include some recommended by Phil) and will be going to a vote soonest. I can assure you that even though USG requirements are represented in the draft, it isn’t interoperable and is inline with other international use cases.
>  
> From: John Bradley <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:37 PM
> To: Paul Grassi <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Chris Drake <[e-mail]>, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>, Justin Richer <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures
>  
> We should probably try and keep the VOT and iGov discussions separate.  
>  
> IGov's use of VOT should largly be on the iGov mailing list at the OIDF.  VOT is only a small reference in iGov.  If that needs to be expanded then discuss over there.  
>  
> This list is for the core VOT spec, and it's fitness to purpose.    
>  
> Concrete examples of profiles for security token trust that cannot be accommodated by VOT would be helpful when making points that the spec is inadiquate in some way.  
>  
> Taking off yet again, so out of communication for at least 12h.
>  
> John B.  
>  
> On Nov 23, 2017 11:17 PM, "Grassi, Paul A. (Fed)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> As the USG rep, I can confidently state that the use case this version supports is 90% of our use cases. Don’t hold us up for the last 10%. That 10% will be amazing, but can come later. What is being asked for is gold-plating, not something that if not done means we are wrong.
>  
> Paul
>  
> From: Chris Drake <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 10:49 PM
> To: "Grassi, Paul A. (Fed)" <[e-mail]>, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
> Cc: John Bradley <[e-mail]>, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>, Justin Richer <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [VoT] IPR disclosures
>  
> Hi,
> 
> I'm on the side of "get it right".  OpenID swept a similar range of topics into the "out of scope" basket, which rendered their first standard so unusable they had to come back and do a second one.
> 
> Lets at least learn from history, and build something *effectively useable* out of the gate.
> 
> You can't drive unsafe or inappropriate cars on any roads, let alone in a SAML lane.  Nobody cares *how* it goes wrong, they just care that it did - so it's our job to look ahead and watch out for those obstacles now; rather than shroud them in SEP.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Chris Drake
> 
> 
> Friday, November 24, 2017, 1:27:18 PM, Grassi, Paul A. (Fed) wrote:
> 
> Fine. But as I have said you want a unicorn when we just want a car that can drive in the same Lane as SAML. Your unicorn is coming, as the phases of igov include international agreement on vot vectors/values and attribute metadata to assert 'assurance' of attributes that are unrelated to proofing.  
> 
> I happy for your contribution don't take unicorn comment poorly. Just a quick post turkey dinner way of making a point. Happy US Thanksgiving. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The issue i am concerned about then is that by leaving out the issue of claims than the vot is incomplete and would require a separate statement. 
> 
> This leads to a lot of interop and complexity problems down the road.  Which value wins etc given they would overlap. 
> 
> The vot does not have to address it now but it should have the capability to do so (that may not be possible without a model). 
> 
> This is a lot like when we found loa was actually multi dimensional and it had to dramatically change.  IAL falls into the same problem. 
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
>  
> On 2017-11-23 21:23, John Bradley wrote:
>  
> Authors,
>  
>  
> As part of the write-up for the Vectors of trust document, we need an
>  
> IPR disclosure from all of you.
>  
>  
> Are you aware of any IPR related to the following VOT document?
>  
>  
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dricher-2Dvectors-2Dof-2Dtrust_%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Dna5FVzBTWmanqWNy4DpctyXPpuYqPkAI1aLcLN4KZNA%26m%3DQbLS61Tkq_l46PCZqD5dxO1fLIa4bYOrGBHGDtJrGNY%26s%3DMzyyadRifkHa-POatwYHEwdNoC7wUj777DGKpyRF2RE%26e&data=02%7C01%7Cpaul.grassi%40nist.gov%7Cab4db3d0fc7a4643a7af08d532c119eb%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636470727310173986&sdata=1dkeGx37WKNwiWfLzR5YNC4KBjqYWqVnt%2B%2FOt7ArqvE%3D&reserved=0=
>  
>  
> Please reply to the list.  
>  
>  
> Regards
>  
> John B. 
>  
>  
> I am not.
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
>  
> vot mailing list
>  
> [e-mail]
>  
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_vot%26d%3DDwIGaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Dna5FVzBTWmanqWNy4DpctyXPpuYqPkAI1aLcLN4KZNA%26m%3DQbLS61Tkq_l46PCZqD5dxO1fLIa4bYOrGBHGDtJrGNY%26s%3DvMBbg4PMZy1qgq6VilC4_SKh4m6b5wkecJsTBKu6txU%26e&data=02%7C01%7Cpaul.grassi%40nist.gov%7Cab4db3d0fc7a4643a7af08d532c119eb%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636470727310173986&sdata=kSRrzffFE6tfhI5p%2F4bk5qXC23kK%2BlMjSa34zlyqaZY%3D&reserved=0=
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vot mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fvot&data=02%7C01%7Cpaul.grassi%40nist.gov%7Cab4db3d0fc7a4643a7af08d532c119eb%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636470727310173986&sdata=6OwTIaa5BjmDXJU4vAzBWtOSbH1Zpav4J6O1Ume7Ra0%3D&reserved=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vot mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vot