From rbarnes@bbn.com Wed Aug 1 00:27:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A78911E809C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.604 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ahRZ65zLN2sL for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D4911E80A6 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.89.255.5] (port=61900) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SwTKl-00089d-Ts; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 03:27:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Richard L. Barnes" In-Reply-To: <4CDBD8FD-69D2-466D-8557-BC60F117D1B6@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:27:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120721131113.7B35C21F8646@ietfa.amsl.com> <266595E9-AB52-4269-BF78-C239DE25FC94@gmx.net> <4CDBD8FD-69D2-466D-8557-BC60F117D1B6@cs.columbia.edu> To: Henning Schulzrinne X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] The future of atoca X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:27:11 -0000 Hey Henning, I appreciate the desire to take on big problems, but I think the = abundance of seemingly big questions in this space has actually held = this group up. I would suggest instead focusing on a drastically simpler phrasing of = the question: We need to get an XML document to a bunch of devices. = What's the minimum we need to do that? =20 Once we have *an* answer to that question, we can optimize it to have = other properties, e.g., better scaling through multicast. --Richard On Jul 30, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > There is significant regulatory interest in exploring IP-based = options, so I would encourage taking stock and looking at a variety of = options. Even a summary of the options and why they do NOT work is = useful. Some initial questions that push beyond the SIP message space: >=20 > One of the bigger problems with CMAS (cellular alerts) is the short = message size, which provides only very limited actionable information. >=20 > Can we leverage IP-TV style multicast for scalable distribution? How = would the equivalent of EAS work in an IP video environment? >=20 > Can we separate the common problem of in-area alerting (subscribers in = a particular area) from the less-common problem of out-of-area alerting = ("elderly relative")? >=20 > Do we have any real experience with the realistic limits of web-based = flash crowds? If every household is watching entertainment (or Olympic) = video at night, the additional load of adding reasonably-detailed = information may not be all that large and CDNs are used to large crowds. >=20 > Henning >=20 > On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Hannes Tschofenig = wrote: >=20 >> The problem I see is that we actually don't have a proposal that = actually works. >> Abstract discussions about potential solutions don't help to make = progress.=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> atoca mailing list >> atoca@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > atoca mailing list > atoca@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca From randy@qualcomm.com Thu Aug 2 16:50:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E3011E8129 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZtOngmA3aWb for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B142D11E8087 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1343951434; x=1375487434; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:x-random-sig-tag: x-originating-ip; bh=Vs8l3qrqGPnqLlMkaTnm0lmgQnH9TsyRwjqm/Hcqhvc=; b=mjMJfFduCoqnCrfjY5huqqYV+V8LEbvveWLasu6NalBeQCMjdnzVOOWF pNhFsyhn34zpZhJDpH20FDBNevKle8FIlTagRjM8TNwgiTRz6/k5R0mrw uqbByXJBaIAgRhKgWYYWqPOSYRYus7/Jllw8tyrg9djO2whKqwzEIR5pl Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6791"; a="218039279" Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2012 16:50:33 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,703,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="160291445" Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 02 Aug 2012 16:50:33 -0700 Received: from [208.181.206.130] (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:50:32 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20120721131113.7B35C21F8646@ietfa.amsl.com> <266595E9-AB52-4269-BF78-C239DE25FC94@gmx.net> <4CDBD8FD-69D2-466D-8557-BC60F117D1B6@cs.columbia.edu> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:50:30 -0700 To: "Richard L. Barnes" , Henning Schulzrinne From: Randall Gellens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] The future of atoca X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:50:34 -0000 I think the group is premature until we have a clear sense of who will implement this, who will deploy this, and most importantly, what are the actual requirements. CMAS was developed with good understanding of those things. For us to do anything useful, we need the same. I'd be happy to help with work if the group was on clearer ground. As Henning and Mark have pointed out, we have what look like different use cases with different needs, such as massive scale alerts, small scale alerts, alerts to interested parties (the school closing and out-of-area notification cases), etc. We also have additional complexity due to the fact that the Internet has many entities who will need to cooperate for this to work. I think Keith's suggestion of keeping the list active but not the WG for now, and either rechartering the WG later or proceeding with individual submissions, makes sense for now. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- There's always one more bug. From martin.thomson@gmail.com Fri Aug 17 09:26:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82EBF11E80D5 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.304, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0lqQq6aRgSp for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876FA11E80A5 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so2312881lbb.31 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=OTO9sH5UmUA+8QdLwfrnbG7KowvBu4Zy/NSn3K7hNds=; b=UstDuwc+hVhXJzedV/fvNVB8UuyW9aDQvwoiQXSPdwPvaUp3lISF1aUbZWUkCALsz/ RKQ8RVNKJJdGQoiC/7tUgxXW1Q6WrvScxsz/68SrLTHp6Xkz4+X1ILPrayXDQ9CkDlK5 2v35h/JCgfqu4egKFReBnA5hN0n4hKQHzUZKBI8LK3GnbiQL1M4bGEfGTfauVKflIEqH /Wg7cjBYkEQYxngs4sAsqiwhzn+NiwgDUQUMVsfZe13YBD6jUcT3tTOduEdE96qtN9qn u4hYYzivFbrTwXB6kyoWZhxTf8bqkrZNUdYq42SYxKQIGgZJ8978DaVzI4NSbT0X8Bo8 ZAmw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.111.200 with SMTP id ik8mr5431219lab.15.1345220795381; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: atoca@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [atoca] Meeting minutes (draft) X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:26:37 -0000 Based on Robin's notes [1] (thanks Robin) and my own recollection of the meeting, here are the minutes. -- The chairs broached the issue of closing, freezing or adjusting the scope of the working group. Richard Barnes showed a proposed plan for the working group. Brian Rosen expressed concerns with some of the specifics of the plan. A number of people expressed skepticism about the continued viability and relevance of the working group. Strong commitments to perform work (including draft submission) from the following people: Richard Barnes Matt Lepinski Brian Rosen Hannes Tschofenig Commitments to review work and provide mailing list feedback from: Roger Marshall Robin Wilton Matt Miller (Apologies if I missed someone, effusive apologies if your name appears here and it should not. Please let me know either way.) The working group chairs and area director will assess the feedback provided during the meeting and propose a plan to the working group in the next two weeks. -- [1] https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=B3CBDA49A25BB9DC!148&authkey=!AK5xQM6p3RWVxAs From martin.thomson@gmail.com Fri Aug 17 11:25:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5844A11E80D1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3cs2+Cgb6pU for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D10D11E809B for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so2343733lah.31 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G8DAkbi/sJgtyUOVog6/BtpzJ/HDPaigt73tRA6FCNU=; b=ra6qYKPRdLjCyHld60Lg2VG6Lai30Oh3OqETuKchjUv/WcZfCNDXBa3srArIls7aGp suL9cDuTOt0s/GFBmXATpwcgrfxHbBYUpIThbLE7c+sKRZboZ/PY6FW5KyNZU1wAWp7j tpsfIFYfKc89wMGRCLrtNfeIXZ9SLNnr+yPjIA7WUW6RExVC8y8hEdNXYz768XkNEwi8 of6PcH5N16QeqWB+Ro+8pZatEEbF4CFHgk33fjbGShly2zz+u2wHHztbhhESeHN9ZocK pG7WtQwOmlrwHCUa05e5m2O6ch/1NZuv8JJZqCk2OdDh071gyedLBz2QjhZskSkWeiXZ 2pug== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.85.97 with SMTP id g1mr2598619lbz.101.1345227905275; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:25:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: atoca@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [atoca] ATOCA Milestones X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:25:07 -0000 Based on the discussion at the last meeting, the chairs and responsible AD have formulated the following milestones. These milestones replace all existing working group milestones. If we are fortunate enough to complete these, then there shouldn't be any problem in coming up with more. The understanding is that if these milestones are not met, then the working group will be closed. -- August 17, 2012 - Call for proposals for Secure Alerting Format September 12, 2012 - Individual contribution(s) made for Secure Alerting Format draft October 1, 2012 - Call for WG consensus on adopting a Secure Alerting Format draft into the WG October 15, 2012 - First WG draft of Secure Alerting Format February 20, 2013 - Submit Secure Alerting Format draft to the IESG as Proposed Standard -- The chairs request that the working group concentrate efforts on these milestones. The following work is potentially of interest, but we may request that discussion be curtailed if is deemed to be affecting progress toward these milestones: - alert delivery mechanisms - discovery of alert sources - discovery of trust anchors If this experiment succeeds we can discuss proceeding with these. From martin.thomson@gmail.com Fri Aug 17 11:35:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FAB11E80D1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRPc7UPfN0tZ for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0757C11E809B for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so2381022lbb.31 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/vCs9ELrsQzI0i84eNkbzhhsWv/va84N9j8iSzUGd7w=; b=m8jAyj5nF+QmTElo9Wcy1gMpWl+lBK37fH9DnWmvC4x9U0GJKhMYNSnRPqMQg1eSzg lAiLXobjH8hYtkEQybu3+DNcaABIVsulg2PIoeSV/Sq7F5jZgJVnWU25tMPT/owhalxf c8P4oA4ewkwklfNt7O6mFyc8tyjqJqsXzw59KiOjf+iax67Ul5LI6A9bO4MYek35R8PP bQ2x+jba0X8zcaD4UynXe9MXRYLJ7slN3TX0DgiX0r6cE/tt0bjT67vOa3s6luQDqF9j HCNXDXHTDfC23olQ7aapOyNJhSLMjAXQ+axS4ojR1DmYMdLHyrGf5jAK0v7sJJl0GVBg Ag9w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.17.195 with SMTP id q3mr2741349lbd.34.1345228497755; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:34:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: atoca@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:35:00 -0000 The ATOCA WG needs you. It has been determined that providing a means of authenticating alerts is critical to the working group. Please submit internet drafts containing proposals that address this problem before September 12. Such a proposal must be able to carry CAP-formatted alerts in such a way that the source(s) of the alert can be authenticated by recipients. Attributing trust to that source is not necessarily within scope, nor is it necessary to describe a protocol or delivery architecture. A submission made earlier than this date will give us more time to discuss it. That is good if we are to meet our later milestones for adoption and publication. From mlepinski@bbn.com Fri Aug 17 11:50:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD0F11E80E1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4JsYSPxsuJS for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFF711E80A5 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bbn.com ([128.33.0.48]:34179) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T2RcP-0005dY-Bw for atoca@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:50:01 -0400 Received: from [128.89.254.21] by mail.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1T2RcP-0003jy-7q for atoca@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: <502E9276.2060003@bbn.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:50:30 -0400 From: Matt Lepinski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: atoca@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:50:07 -0000 This sounds like a good path forward. I believe that draft-barnes-atoca-escape-00 is a very rough first cut at a secure transport/delivery agnostic mechanism for authenticating CAP-formatted alerts. Note that draft-barnes-atoca-escape-00 has a section devoted to open questions. If you have an answer to any of these questions, or additional questions not considered in the draft please send mail to the list. Also, if this is totally the wrong approach for authenticating CAP alerts, please send mail to the list. - Matt Lepinski On 8/17/2012 2:34 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > The ATOCA WG needs you. > > It has been determined that providing a means of authenticating alerts > is critical to the working group. > > Please submit internet drafts containing proposals that address this > problem before September 12. > > Such a proposal must be able to carry CAP-formatted alerts in such a > way that the source(s) of the alert can be authenticated by > recipients. Attributing trust to that source is not necessarily > within scope, nor is it necessary to describe a protocol or delivery > architecture. > > A submission made earlier than this date will give us more time to > discuss it. That is good if we are to meet our later milestones for > adoption and publication. > _______________________________________________ > atoca mailing list > atoca@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca > From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Aug 17 12:06:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C83E21F85A1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.793 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.194, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id piuC0AVi70Y8 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7128C21F85A2 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (unknown [67.177.192.224]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55F6B4050A; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:06:49 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:06:15 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Thomson References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:06:17 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/17/12 12:34 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > The ATOCA WG needs you. > > It has been determined that providing a means of authenticating > alerts is critical to the working group. > > Please submit internet drafts containing proposals that address > this problem before September 12. > > Such a proposal must be able to carry CAP-formatted alerts in such > a way that the source(s) of the alert can be authenticated by > recipients. Attributing trust to that source is not necessarily > within scope, nor is it necessary to describe a protocol or > delivery architecture. Some years ago, the XMPP Standards Foundation defined a way to send CAP-formatted alerts over XMPP: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0127.html XMPP also includes methods for signed messages (e.g., RFC 3923, although the XMPP WG is considering a more modern approach based on the output of the JOSE WG). If signed XMPP messages containing CAP-formatted alerts might be of interest, I would be happy to write an I-D defining this approach in more detail. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAulicACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxKaACg+FtkpH/ocmY9B08BfvNXgFLZ YlEAoJiGG0s1B6nzHWIgVhSPBbvutfbZ =CK+1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rbarnes@bbn.com Fri Aug 17 14:16:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4742811E80E9 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:16:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id De3weLi5F1Rl for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F38111E80D1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ros-dhcp192-1-51-103.bbn.com ([192.1.51.103]:58844) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T2Tto-000DLO-Gc; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:16:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Richard L. Barnes" In-Reply-To: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:16:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> References: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> To: Peter Saint-Andre X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:16:15 -0000 Hey Peter, Thanks for this observation. I think we were thinking of things in kind of the other direction: 1. Define a general signed alert format 2. Define a way to transport those over XMPP (XEP-0127-bis) This approach provides a more general functionality than sending CAP in = secure XMPP (e.g., with an RFC 3923 signature). The relationship is = essentially the same as that between POSH and, say, attribute = certificates over HTTP. In one case, the signature is being provided by = the protocol used to deliver the alert; in the other, the signature is = attached to the object itself. In the interest of being = delivery-agnostic, ISTM that the object-based approach is preferable. It may also be pretty trivial to extend XEP-0127 to support the security = we describe here. For example, if we allow detached signatures (which = seems like a good idea), you could keep the same syntax as XEP-0127 and = just add an attribute/element to carry signature data. (As long as the = serialization of the CAP can't change...) Hope this helps, --Richard On Aug 17, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > On 8/17/12 12:34 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> The ATOCA WG needs you. >>=20 >> It has been determined that providing a means of authenticating >> alerts is critical to the working group. >>=20 >> Please submit internet drafts containing proposals that address >> this problem before September 12. >>=20 >> Such a proposal must be able to carry CAP-formatted alerts in such >> a way that the source(s) of the alert can be authenticated by=20 >> recipients. Attributing trust to that source is not necessarily=20 >> within scope, nor is it necessary to describe a protocol or >> delivery architecture. >=20 > Some years ago, the XMPP Standards Foundation defined a way to send > CAP-formatted alerts over XMPP: >=20 > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0127.html >=20 > XMPP also includes methods for signed messages (e.g., RFC 3923, > although the XMPP WG is considering a more modern approach based on > the output of the JOSE WG). >=20 > If signed XMPP messages containing CAP-formatted alerts might be of > interest, I would be happy to write an I-D defining this approach in > more detail. >=20 > Peter >=20 > - --=20 > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ >=20 >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >=20 > iEYEARECAAYFAlAulicACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxKaACg+FtkpH/ocmY9B08BfvNXgFLZ > YlEAoJiGG0s1B6nzHWIgVhSPBbvutfbZ > =3DCK+1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > atoca mailing list > atoca@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Aug 17 14:44:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80BC21E8085 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:44:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.782 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.782 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbH2ZuRADOgM for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2169E21E805F for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (unknown [67.177.192.224]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D186404EA; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:49 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <502EBB2E.9040305@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:14 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard L. Barnes" References: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> In-Reply-To: <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:44:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/17/12 3:16 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote: > Hey Peter, > > Thanks for this observation. > > I think we were thinking of things in kind of the other direction: > 1. Define a general signed alert format 2. Define a way to > transport those over XMPP (XEP-0127-bis) > > This approach provides a more general functionality than sending > CAP in secure XMPP (e.g., with an RFC 3923 signature). The > relationship is essentially the same as that between POSH and, say, > attribute certificates over HTTP. In one case, the signature is > being provided by the protocol used to deliver the alert; in the > other, the signature is attached to the object itself. In the > interest of being delivery-agnostic, ISTM that the object-based > approach is preferable. > > It may also be pretty trivial to extend XEP-0127 to support the > security we describe here. For example, if we allow detached > signatures (which seems like a good idea), you could keep the same > syntax as XEP-0127 and just add an attribute/element to carry > signature data. (As long as the serialization of the CAP can't > change...) Yes, that all makes sense. My apologies if I missed earlier discussion on this topic. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAuuy4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxeoACg51083zPtLu0J860VwZ1tL32k x40AoMsIxU7wFU3zc2VzPagEjm2TNoAb =Mjcr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martin.thomson@gmail.com Fri Aug 17 15:12:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2A421E8088 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.945 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvZffLXBtvVw for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AAF21E8063 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so2474573lbb.31 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hderbBH8PnsKZvnRsvMEWehbmaDTj4gcoM/DURXrufk=; b=oTCfjS1MDsilctfXpiqpBpwGI7fv9pXPVm2huTWqQPRR4NivmBsrKYqio/JaKC/n9u Wpy/9vYnRZq9LRqBc2w3/xjEL75vVa2RExbb/3DNJxu2hHuFa2oFxX1cZ+ocT+yuaYva s1PbjbhwVlKIHBnSw7k69rHnOo/rvsTADC6OFmViBE/iIDqz531Hg0i5foiO6sH9M3Wg N2+jYT9AbU+kEY3YZTfGf6WJHNEZfiPS12zXqIBcZjOieXqnMv+qq0qEMg9ZI+ZtwEQr LVm0VjtbzKacVNcKqg8FQIpX0B8eHlIOtmBYFySh+BdNBDQCPOU7dWmZVRWGjSEkj2oV 4DYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.83.97 with SMTP id p1mr2871790lby.94.1345241522162; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> References: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:12:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: "Richard L. Barnes" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:12:04 -0000 On 17 August 2012 14:16, Richard L. Barnes wrote: > I think we were thinking of things in kind of the other direction: > 1. Define a general signed alert format > 2. Define a way to transport those over XMPP (XEP-0127-bis) And we are doing 1, just 1. If this succeeds, we can talk about doing 2, or something else. I should also point out that CAP does specify a signing capability based on XMLDsig. One potential outcome is that a profile of XMLDsig is developed that can be used in this context. Based on what I know of XMLDsig, that seems unlikely, but this is ultimately a decision for the working group. From rbarnes@bbn.com Fri Aug 17 15:20:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3C711E80D1 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Q54m306RTDw for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E83911E80A4 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ros-dhcp192-1-51-103.bbn.com ([192.1.51.103]:58977) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T2Utt-0008Yy-Ig; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:20:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Richard L. Barnes" In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:20:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8CFFEC72-1B54-4906-938D-1EDBB67CBF6F@bbn.com> References: <502E9627.4030008@stpeter.im> <22E8EC45-F535-4304-8C80-B2E17F59902C@bbn.com> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: atoca@ietf.org Subject: Re: [atoca] Call for submissions: Secure Alert Format X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:20:21 -0000 >> I think we were thinking of things in kind of the other direction: >> 1. Define a general signed alert format >> 2. Define a way to transport those over XMPP (XEP-0127-bis) >=20 > And we are doing 1, just 1. >=20 > If this succeeds, we can talk about doing 2, or something else. Yep, that's what I meant. Just outlining the broader MO. > I should also point out that CAP does specify a signing capability > based on XMLDsig. One potential outcome is that a profile of XMLDsig > is developed that can be used in this context. Based on what I know > of XMLDsig, that seems unlikely, but this is ultimately a decision for > the working group. Do you know if any of the real CAP implementations out there use this = mechanism?= From martin.thomson@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 16:19:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: atoca@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A535811E80D9 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.183 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.073, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hG7PeZq7qDrJ for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16C511E80D3 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so204731lah.31 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=r5ymFL9BEXkzsW6U4YhcO2w8lOAcwyUHNxblL4duNA8=; b=sKu+8yjNe68eltb+JDgh4rneglxWQb7R4Or+DGNxK2C/Kkj0ZtLKOYFqDwTqo9yd0y rq3yu/8JErgsUPRV6e5BJ+/64V1mTiVjN3v7Qw+kriToWMPU4csRuF38LstQn2AsXeHr MZuIosDDSW9lE2+2QkhJeFdAt1dvr2avaGGsna2riS8Hq34Zvmv/SGIoSjIkt2uZMukd FXgiJiuJMDByoVIrR3RULA7581SBPE575W0TrEQD8IA2/zpxygRSKtS85xYvqnPNVKNY lSb1Y4fX62MGcElKZ+EWaVLEs965m7iYkvQ9yGmlPMjfvHkOHW8DyPvQ3pUma+wz6Pod o/LA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.23.196 with SMTP id o4mr5509245lbf.49.1345591149710; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:19:09 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: atoca@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [atoca] Meeting minutes (draft) X-BeenThere: atoca@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:19:11 -0000 Minutes have been uploaded. This chance to correct the record or to avoid work has lapsed. On 17 August 2012 09:26, Martin Thomson wrote: > Based on Robin's notes [1] (thanks Robin) and my own recollection of > the meeting, here are the minutes. > > -- > > The chairs broached the issue of closing, freezing or adjusting the > scope of the working group. > > Richard Barnes showed a proposed plan for the working group. Brian > Rosen expressed concerns with some of the specifics of the plan. > > A number of people expressed skepticism about the continued viability > and relevance of the working group. > > Strong commitments to perform work (including draft submission) from > the following people: > Richard Barnes > Matt Lepinski > Brian Rosen > Hannes Tschofenig > > Commitments to review work and provide mailing list feedback from: > Roger Marshall > Robin Wilton > Matt Miller > > (Apologies if I missed someone, effusive apologies if your name > appears here and it should not. Please let me know either way.) > > The working group chairs and area director will assess the feedback > provided during the meeting and propose a plan to the working group in > the next two weeks. > > -- > [1] https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=B3CBDA49A25BB9DC!148&authkey=!AK5xQM6p3RWVxAs