Subject: [abfab] progress

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:01:02 +0200

Klaas and me are holding off on requesting a session in Taipei
until the very last minute. Progress on this list since Quebec
has been too slow even for an IETF wg.

We urgently need reviewers. Some of you who volunteered in Quebec
will get pinged in the next few hours but others should pitch in
aswell.

	Cheers Leif & Klaas

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:58:05 -0400

I think it would be helpful to have an on-list discussion about what's
needed for various documents.
I'll be happy to start something for aaa-saml, architecture, gss-eap and
gss-eap-naming.
Any chance the chairs could comment or recruit comments on
applicability?

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:06:52 +0200

> Any chance the chairs could comment or recruit comments on

Why not just have the editors update the various documents and solicit
review and comment like we normally do in the IETF?

The chairs are busy pinging people in the background to fulfill their
commitments from the last IETF to review and comment but I suspect an
update of aaa-saml, gss-eap and gss-eap-naming might speed things along
assuming there are resolved issues that can be reflected in a new version.

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:38:48 +0200

On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:

> Hash: SHA1

just to add to this, I have talked to Josh and he promised to bring forward a new AAA-SAML draft that encompasses the issues Jim and you raised asap. I expect some lively discussion on that both on the list and in the meeting, given that the proposed changes trickle down in the other documents.

Klaas

---

From: Josh Howlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:01 +0000

>
>just to add to this, I have talked to Josh and he promised to bring
>forward a new AAA-SAML draft that encompasses the issues Jim and you
>raised asap. I expect some lively discussion on that both on the list and
>in the meeting, given that the proposed changes trickle down in the other
>documents.

I submitted an updated draft about a week or so ago but, now you mention
it, I don't think I've seen anything appear. Who should I chase?

The document now reluctantly discusses the SAML binding aspects. As Leif
indicates ideally this should be done in OASIS SSTC. However I don't think
it does any harm to continue developing the binding text within the
existing document (and it may even help comprehension). The bindings text
can be re-factored out once a volunteer from OASIS SSTC comes forwards
*nudge* *nudge*.

Josh.

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:04:35 -0400

>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Leif> On 09/23/2011 03:58 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> I think it would be helpful to have an on-list discussion about
    >> what's needed for various documents.  I'll be happy to start
    >> something for aaa-saml, architecture, gss-eap and gss-eap-naming.

    Leif> Why not just have the editors update the various documents and
    Leif> solicit review and comment like we normally do in the IETF?

I'm unconvinced any significant update is needed.
I think it would be valuable to  have a discussion about what updates
are needed to that document.
You claimed that some combination of you and the authors believed that
doc wasn't ready.
So I'd like to have a discussion of what needs doing.

---

From: "Leif Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:50:30 +0200

The authors have told the chairs that the applicability stmt needs another revision. Joe has promised an update in 1-2 weeks.

23 sep 2011 kl. 17:05 skrev "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>:

> _______________________________________________
> abfab mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:15:20 -0400

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Schaad <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jim> Sam, EXTREME IRRITATION

    Jim> I believe that I have provided comments on a number of
    Jim> documents.  To the best of my knowledge many of these comments
    Jim> are still outstanding and have not had significant changes in
    Jim> documents resulting from them.  This despite the fact that
    Jim> there was a long discussion between the two of us on
    Jim> architecture document changes that needed to be made shortly
    Jim> after the spring face-to-face meeting.

    Jim> Is it worth it for me to continue reviewing documents if I
    Jim> never seem to see updates resulting from them.

Hi, Jim.
I want to confirm the understanding.

I think I've addressed your comments on draft-ietf-gss-eap to the best
of my ability.
If I have not, I'm really sorry and I'd like to deal with it.

I think that the architecture document has not been updated
significantly at all since you gave your comments, and I think that
draft-ietf-gss-eap-naming has not been updated since you gave your
comments.

First, if you or anyone else wants commit access to the architecture
document, my personal opinion is that more help would be great.  I'd
even love to find that I was no longer involved in the architecture
document as an editor.  If I remain involved, I do commit to addressing
your comments in the next major update and believe your review has been
incredibly valuable.  I've explained why I think the specs are a higher
priority than the architecture document.  I'd be happy to have an
off-list discussion if you think that's the wrong prioritization.

As I mentioned, I do plan on addressing draft-ietf-gss-eap-naming
comments in the next month and think draft-ietf-aaa-saml comments need
to be addressed in that time frame too.

Your comments have been very valuable and I want to do what it takes to
make you happy.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:37 +0200

> off-list discussion if you think that's the wrong prioritization.

If anyone in the WG feels we should change our prioritization this
should actually be on-list since the WG already has consensus to
do core documents before architecture.

In other words: Sam isn't just expressing his personal opinion here
but is actually reflecting WG consensus.