Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt
Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Thu, 27 February 2014 16:20 UTC
Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 8F5E61A02A1 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:20:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 yX6cv8KdSC3n for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9081A0316 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:20:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1764; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393518054; x=1394727654; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D1q2y2JE8XncSwp6CVgskESsPpvcZY0hTnLxf6lJmTs=; b=al+EpgkwkbyAbphkqeqv8Sy3XdJ6ZJSul97vemySwbmNmfJSjdNPXyUd hENSJ1Nxv6kaylw6zvp7BUT844/NzYNl4GGxzTgCRf0o3iU83F8b5ubzx VNkkIZzw9AFTyOKWQTYiCw4LY5C9/2xG+NzOEXWT/4yr9NAJRyslnWOnq 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoKAAxlD1OtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V6gpBJhegRsWdIIlAQEBBHgBEAsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEFAgEBF4deywUXjiIzB4Q3AQOJEjiLA4NrkiqDTYIK
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,555,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="23692524"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2014 16:20:53 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1RGKrQB029408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:20:53 GMT
Received: from jack.cisco.com (64.101.72.76) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (173.37.183.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:20:52 -0600
Message-ID: <530F65E4.4070405@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:20:52 -0700
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de>
References: <20140204202306.13810.80083.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <530E5C61.1010000@goodadvice.pages.de> <9DE55A87-E46F-4DBC-B9CE-15EAB0A99045@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <9DE55A87-E46F-4DBC-B9CE-15EAB0A99045@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [64.101.72.76]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/rTlsBFCVmgnOyN4vl7F-MfFbjQo
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 16:20:57 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 2/27/14, 8:32 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > (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. > I don't think the suggestion is to abandon (for now) the S2S case, but to show the C2S case first because there's a lot fewer moving parts. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTD2XkAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO11QsIAJlLfOkQJwK1DsAmgOCmsRCp AjUGEaLiCv/5ffHW9VeqOLn0/LmPGzctFHjezeTVPQhCSVipBvvcxZcG72VtWsF/ o9Z6lQwDcgVxNBouRczFphxAVLAtOR3UQ60U0jLmSPbs2OiiIKUDzawCGYHxos4j 0G+V2DEywFBEVInT9NomcbmBRnjh54jjCQ6E5NXcc3TrOL7a7rECToiMOpBWTy5o 0YlphD9jJwcMoe3Ph6efI19BN0BMjh0MqgJvbnMES3VqhS3ujKKJp2QpAR/Heypx S2EGFXmRPfSjParRUzquJc1T/BuqUIxy6/fUh3Jn6xL7R8yC8wPb2dM58OeQWmI= =F5UX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt internet-drafts
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Matt Miller
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Philipp Hancke
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Dave Cridland
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Matt Miller
- Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt Peter Saint-Andre