[Wimse] Re: Token Exchange and Translation Protocol

[Dean Saxe <[e-mail]>]

 Flemming,

Thank you again for the feedback.


For IETF 120 the most important output (IMHO) was to frame up the problem
space and an approach to solving for the use cases we identified.  The doc
is rough and at a high level because we really needed feedback to inform
the next steps - are we approaching this problem from the right
perspective?  Are we missing something in the existing RFCs?

I agree that there’s more work to be done on the use cases draft to inform
this document.

Additional commentary/questions inline below.

-dhs
--
Dean H. Saxe, CIDPRO <https://idpro.org/cidpro/>
Principal Engineer, Office of the CTO
Beyond Identity
[e-mail]




On Jul 30, 2024 at 6:16:23 PM, Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) <fandreas=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> We have a charter item corresponding to this document and I don't see any
> other candidate documents at this time, so I vote for A.
>
> The document is pretty rough though and mostly introduces some of the
> problems to consider. Additionally, the document would benefit from the
> following:
> - More work on the requirements to feed into this document (per separate
> e-mail thread on requirements)
> - A set of representative use case scenarios to illustrate what we are
> after. This is especially important for the "token translation" scenarios.
>

How is this different from the use cases described in the use cases I-D?
Are these more concrete examples or something entirely different?

- Clarity on whether we aim to use (/profile) RFC 8693 for "token
> translation" or whether that is only for "token exchange"
>

I have an action item to follow up with Brian Campbell on this as discussed
in the WG last week.


- Clarity on which token formats we want to be able to translate/exchange.
> While the document notes that these will be provided as "translation
> profiles", we shold understand the target ones early on, and develop at
> least some of them in parallel with the basic translation/exchange
> protocol.
>

I am supportive of developing the profiles side-by-side with this ID.  I
thought I had said that in the meeting, but if I did not, that was my
intent.  My thought process was to enable profiles to be developed on a
separate track to allow the WG to deliver RFC candidates more quickly
without allowing one profile to bog down the work on the larger token
translation doc.

If you have suggested token translations to focus on in the near term,
please let me know.



> Cheers
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
> On 7/29/24 08:25, Justin Richer wrote:
>
> Following discussion in Vancouver, the chairs would like to begin
> discussion on what the next steps should be for the Token Exchange and
> Translation Protocol document [1], an output of the Token Exchange Design
> Team. This is not a call for adoption as there was a clear indication in
> the room that the document was not yet ready for this stage.
>
> Please reply to the list to indicate that:
>
> A: You believe this document should be developed into a state that the WG
> can adopt it. (Please discuss what you believe would be required changes
> for this. Please keep in mind that a call for adoption is a starting point
> for a document, not a finished document.)
>
> B: You believe this document should NOT be developed further by the WG.
> (Please indicate why if possible)
>
> C: You need more information before making this decision. (Please indicate
> what information you’d need)
>
> D: You don’t give a flying rat about this document (i.e., this is not a
> topic you care strongly about)
>
>
> Please reply to the list by August 12th, 2024.
>
> — Justin and Pieter
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saxe-wimse-token-exchange-and-translation/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wimse mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>