Folks, Given Sam's response and that nobody disagreed I think it'd be best to update the updates thing before IETF LC so I've marked this as revised I-D needed.
Please yell at me if that's wrong. Even better, shoot out that revised I-D and I'll start IETF LC. Thanks, S. On 05/15/2013 11:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes: > > Stephen> - Should this update 3748? Current IESG thinking (i.e. > Stephen> want something else and someone will badger you:-) is that > Stephen> if a reader of 3748 really ought also read this, then this > Stephen> should update 3748; if its ok for a reader of 3748 to not > Stephen> have to read this, then this shouldn't update 3748. I'd > Stephen> guess that this should update 3847 but am ok if you say > Stephen> not. I'd like to just double check that before IETF LC > Stephen> since someone might want a 2nd LC otherwise. (Safest is to > Stephen> include it during IETF LC and the updates thing could > Stephen> always be dropped later.) > > This was brought up in WGLC. > The conclusion I recall is that we should update 3748 and the document > would be changed prior to IETF LC:-) > > Stephen> - Mentioning the WG name in the abstract is usually wrong > Stephen> since the WG will go away. Maybe say what abfab does > Stephen> instead, e.g. like the charter does and say "...usage of > Stephen> the EAP protocol as part of a federated identity mechanism > Stephen> for use by Internet protocols not based on HTML/HTTP, such > Stephen> as for instance IMAP, XMPP, SSH and NFS." (Same for later > Stephen> mentions of the wg.) > > > I think we're calling the overall architecture ABFAB as well. so I > think we're mentioning the technology (which is gss-eap, plus a way of > describing naming of attributes, plus SAML rules for RADIUS, plus > potentially things in the future) not the WG. > > Stephen> - s4, RECOMMENDS use of [I-D.ietf-emu-crypto-bind], doesn't > Stephen> that make it a normative reference? > Stephen> _______________________________________________ abfab > Stephen> mailing list [email protected] > Stephen> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab > > Except the emu draft doesn't define a protocol. > It describes a mechanism you might want to include when designing EAP > methods. > > So perhaps recommends using that mechanism when available in EAP > methods or some such. > > --Sam > > _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
