IMHO the biggest problem with "onboarding" is that people create new terms without specifying what they actually mean and thereby fail to see the relationship with existing work.
-----Original Message----- From: Ace [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: 19 February 2018 19:21 To: Ludwig Seitz Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-10.txt: Leaving implementers in the dark Ludwig Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that onboarding is a valid concern (which is why I wrote > appendix B), > but lets not delay draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz any further by adding a whole > new set of functionality in it. Back at the beginning of ACE it was clear that onboarding was an entire project of itself. That's why I argued to keep it out of the first charter. Onboarding suffers from a tendancy to boil the ocean, combined with the elephant/blind-men problem. The way to tackle onboarding is not with a single unifying ocean boiling protocol, but rather by letting each interested party define small protocols, and over time find commonality. I get the vision of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibbler So while it is unfortunate if some implementers feel to be "in the dark", before we could rectify that situation, we'd have to know which implementers we are worried about. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
