22 maj 2013 kl. 19:18 skrev "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]>:
>
> 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.
>
To change to 'updates' - yes.
> 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
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
