-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/01/2012 10:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
> on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-johansson-loa-registry-04 Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: April 1, 2012 IETF LC End Date: April 3, 2012 IESG
> Telechat date: April 12, 2012
>
> This draft establishes an IETF registry of SAML Level of Assurance
> (LoA) profiles; it's short and clear, although it does not contain
> any initial content for the registry - presumably that will be
> supplied after the registry is created via the expert review
> registration mechanism established by this draft.
>
> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
> described in the review.
>
> Major issues: (1) My major open issue concerns the last paragraph
> in the Introduction:
>
> Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML
> Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs
> to represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on
> their SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by protocols other
> than SAML or OpenID Connect is encouraged.
>
> While this is good in principle, and one presumes that each
> registration of sets of profiles from an existing protocol will be
> self-consistent, this text also encourages other (e.g., new)
> protocols to draw upon this registry without providing any
> guidance. I'm concerned that it's probably possible to make a
> serious mess in a new protocol by using an LoA or two from
> multiple sets of registered LoAs without paying attention to
> whether the resulting collection of LoAs is consistent or coherent
> (or even sensible) for use in a single protocol. This concern is
> reinforced by the guidance to expert reviewers in Section 4.1,
> which effectively conveys a desire to get all of the reasonable LoA
> profiles registered here, regardless of source or consistency with
> other registered LoA profiles.
>
> I'd like to see some guidance to protocol designers and others for
> how to appropriately select multiple LoA profiles from this
> registry in a fashion that results in a consistent and (hopefully)
> usable collection. For example, it may be a good idea to use (or
> start with) a set of related profiles already in use by an existing
> protocol in preference to mixing/matching individual profiles from
> multiple existing protocols. At some level, this is common sense
> advice that the presence of profiles in this registry does not
> obviate the need to apply good design judgment, but that does
> deserve to be stated.
David,
The type of consistency you look for is extremely difficult to ascertain
and often rely on mapping the underlying policies. However I do see your
point. How about this:
"Protocol designers who want to reference this registry should be aware
that registered LoAs may depend on assumptions that do not carry over
to a new protocol."
>
> Minor issues: (2)
>
> (1) This draft is intended to be an informational RFC, but it uses
> RFC 2119 keywords. That's only a good idea in exceptional
> circumstances. I suggest removing section 1.1 and replacing upper
> case MUST/SHOULD/MAY with their lower case versions or reworded
> explanations of rationale. Most of the uses of RFC 2119 keywords
> are not protocol requirements, but requirements on IANA,
> registrants, and users of the registry for which RFC 2119 keywords
> are not appropriate, e.g., see RFC 2119 section 6:
>
> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with
> care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it
> is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which
> has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)
ok
>
> (2) Section 4
>
> OLD The initial pool of expert and the review criteria are outlined
> below. NEW The review criteria are outlined below.
>
> The initial pool of experts is not designated by this draft.
>
good catch
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Section 3
>
> OLD The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and
> names NEW The reserved element defined by the following ABNF
> productions represents a set of reserved values and names
ok
>
> Section 4
>
> The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert
> Review" policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts
>
> Nope, the actual RFC5226 name of that well-known IANA policy is
> Expert Review (or Designated Expert), see section 4.1 of RFC5226.
> If that well-known IANA policy isn't what was intended, this is a
> serious open issue.
that IANA policy was indeed intended.
>
> Top of p.7 The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be
> taken to imply ^ r ---------------------------------------/
>
Here I actually want normative language. It is quite important that the
registry not be over-interpreted.
> Section 7
>
> OLD An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust
> framework or NEW A protocol implementor MUST NOT treat the registry
> as a trust framework or
>
I actually don't mean protocol implementor here. I mean consumer of the
registry.
> The minor issue about RFC 2119 keywords also applies to this text.
>
This is another case where I think I disagree!
> idnits 2.12.13 did not find any nits that need attention.
>
> Thanks, --David
thank you!
Cheers Leif
> ---------------------------------------------------- David L.
> Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St.,
> Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508)
> 293-7786 [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk94z7cACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnczSACgtOd/Ltv7PXDMYFkdbDHBeKdB
n7UAoKNkSnBB/ZQZF96gwvKbTnXQq8Nt
=lEQ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
