Not sure if techies care, but that really needs to be a four party transaction where the subject of a credential may not be the holder of the device where the credential is held. Your are thereby excluding appropriately 15% of humanity. This is, frankly, unconscionable and you must accommodate all humans who are likely to need digital credentials.
thx ..Tom (mobile) On Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 11:06 AM Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org> wrote: > Forwarding to raise awareness. Please provide feedback on the SPICE > charter by Thursday, February 22 by using the spice@ietf mailing list ( > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice). This consensus thread > starts here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spice/TTgOt6qI3CzILzV4i34nLmkmeMc/. > > -----Original Message----- > From: SPICE <spice-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw > Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 2:01 PM > To: sp...@ietf.org > Subject: [SPICE] Call for consensus on SPICE charter > > Hi! > > At IETF 118, a BoF on SPICE was convened [1]. The meeting provided a > strong consensus signal that there was a problem to solve and that the IETF > was the right place to do that. While there was enthusiasm around the > topic, there was strong feedback the scope of the work needed refinement. > > In recent months, there have been numerous follow-on discussion and > refinement on the charter text. As we approach final planning for IETF > 119, I'd like to assess where we stand with a formal consensus check on a > revised charter responsive to the feedback during the IETF 118 BoF. Please > see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spice/00-00/ (00-00) > and respond to the list by Thursday, February 22 (two weeks from now): > > ==[ start consensus check questions ]== > (1) Do you support the charter text? Or do you have objections or blocking > concerns (please describe what they might be and how you would propose > addressing the concern)? > > If you do support the charter text: > (2) Are you willing to author or participate in the developed of the WG > drafts? > > (3) Are you willing to review the WG drafts? > > (4) Are you interested in implementing the WG drafts? > > ==[ end consensus check questions ]== > > If you previously spoke up at the BoF, please repeat yourself here. > Earlier versions of a charter were shared on the mailing list and informal > inquiries of support were requested. Please repeat your support or > concerns for this 00-00 charter even if you commented on earlier iterations. > > The outcome of this consensus check will inform how to plan for the second > SPICE BoF scheduled at IETF 118. Non-exhaustive options include: > > (a) If we find consensus on the mailing with the current charter text, no > BoF is needed, and it will be canceled. Note, this should be viewed as a > success. The entire point of the BoF is to produce and find consensus on a > charter and that goal would have been realized. SPICE proponents have > indicated a side meeting will be held. > > (b) If there are blocking concerns which cannot be resolved on the mailing > list, these will form the basis of the IETF 118 BoF agenda > > A common question I've already gotten is can SPICE be a WG by IETF 119. > The simple answer is no -- there is insufficient time to perform all of the > necessary review steps before IETF 119 to charter SPICE. In more detail, > assume hypothetically that there is unbridled enthusiasm for the work from > the community and IESG: this email consensus check takes 2 weeks (till Feb > 22) + 1 week advanced notice before an IESG formal telechat for initial > review + initial IESG review (on Feb 29) + 10 days for community review + a > return back for final IESG approval at a formal telechat. The last > formal IESG telechat is March 7 (which is before the community review > period would close). In the best case by IETF 119, this charter would have > been through initial IESG review, all community feedback would have been > adjudicated, and the charter would be waiting discussion at the first > formal IESG telechat after the IETF 119 meeting. > > As a process matter, options (a) and (b) are both hypothetical options > pending the results of this call for consensus. However, I'd like to be > sensitive to earlier feedback on my use of option-(a) for the last WG > chartered out of SEC, KEYTRANS. In the lead up to IETF 118, option-(a) was > exercised for the planned KEYTRANS BOF (i.e., it was canceled) because > consensus was found on the mailing list and sent to the IESG before the > meeting. There was community feedback that canceling the BOF denied an > opportunity to provide feedback that was being saved for the F2F BoF and > missed a F2F opportunity to gather interested parties. To that end, I will > be cross posting this call for consensus on SPICE to SAAG and identity > adjacent WG lists (e.g., JOSE, COSE, SCITT, OAuth, RATS) to ensure broad > awareness of this call. SPICE proponents have signaled to me that they > would organize a side meeting if the BoF is canceled to ensure F2F > discussions. Finally, if you are already aware of factors w > hich necessitate a F2F BOF discussion that can't be introduced as part > of this consensus check on the mailing list, please let me know. > > Thanks, > Roman > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-118-spice-202311070830/ > -- > SPICE mailing list > sp...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
