[Wimse] Re: Token Translation Requirements

[Dean Saxe <[e-mail]>]

 Thanks for the feedback, Flemming. After hearing the discussion about use
cases in WIMSE and later in SPICE, I agree that this is unlikely to become
a RFC, but there is good information in this draft to help us guide the
work moving forward.

Chairs, I’m at B on this doc - we need to continue developing the doc while
recognizing it’s not destined to be an RFC.  I’m supportive of this being
an I-D and later being codified into a wiki or similar artifact.

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




On Jul 30, 2024 at 2:28:09 PM, Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) <fandreas=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> My preference would be Option A, but as noted below, I do not see the
> document becoming an RFC.
>
> A few considerations wrt. the current document that I would like to see
> addressed going forward:
> - The requirements are fairly high-level and generic in nature. It would
> be helpful to focus on specific token formats we want to support and
> requirements associated with those.
> - Requirements around when and how token translation should be done.
> - Requirements around how to deal with token translation with information
> loss.
>
> I will note that some of the above is addressed in the corresponding
> protocol document (
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-saxe-wimse-token-exchange-and-translation-00.html)
> but if we want to do requirements, then we should consider them in the
> requirements document as well.
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
>
> On 7/29/24 08:26, Justin Richer wrote:
>
> Following discussion in Vancouver, the chairs would like to begin
> discussion on what the next steps should be for the Token Translation
> Requirements 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.
>
> As this is a requirements document, and it is unusual for a requirements
> document to be codified as an RFC, the chairs would like the group to
> discuss what the intended direction of this document should be. 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 be developed by the WG as something
> other than a WG / RFC-track document. (Please discuss what you think the
> right format or forum would be - a wiki page, a web page, an eternal I-D, a
> blog post, etc)
>
> C: You believe this document should NOT be developed further by the WG.
> (Please indicate why if possible)
>
> D: 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-rosomakho-wimse-tokentranslation-reqs/
>
>
> --
> Wimse mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>