IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 27 February 2014 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431331A0300 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:32:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBnW_2oOF47e for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601611A02E0 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1RFWgJq012064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:32:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <530E5C61.1010000@goodadvice.pages.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:32:42 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9DE55A87-E46F-4DBC-B9CE-15EAB0A99045@nostrum.com>
References: <20140204202306.13810.80083.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <530E5C61.1010000@goodadvice.pages.de>
To: Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/X5sT3xsaDC3tGdfLcw-ui4Fh_zE
Cc: xmpp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:32:55 -0000

(as co-chair)

On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de> wrote:

> In part, this confusion seems to be caused by the attempt to do both C2S and S2S. DNA is needed for both, but the document mostly describes S2S, which is the more complicated case.
> 
> I think starting with a C2S scenario would be better. It's alot easier because only a single party does DNA. Explaining delegation and multi-tenancy is easier, too.

That is probably because we are chartered for S2S, but not explicitly for C2S. That doesn't prevent a solution that solves both, but we need to solve S2S in order to claim victory. 

If we agree that C2S is a better problem to solve, then we would need to recharter for it. That's not a problem to do if we have reason.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email