Subject: [Ace] Interim agenda

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:59:42 +0200

Hi Goeran,

I'll leave the process issues to the chairs.

As far as I can see, there is no official agenda yet for the Interim,
but we said that we wanted to get the informational documents off the table.

So I would expect the agenda to be approximately:

-- Chairs' introduction

-- "ACE use cases", Ludwig Seitz, Stefanie Gerdes, Goran Selander, Mehdi
  Mani, Sandeep Kumar, 2015-09-23, <draft-ietf-ace-usecases-06.txt>

-- "An architecture for authorization in constrained environments",
  Stefanie Gerdes, Ludwig Seitz, Goran Selander, Carsten Bormann,
  2015-09-29, <draft-ietf-ace-actors-01.txt>

-- AOB

For both documents, I think we should discuss:
-- remaining issues (identify and, if possible, resolve on the spot)
-- who is going to do the work to resolve them, and when
-- do we need any additional review

Do we have anything else on the agenda?  I was not proposing anything
else.  I was just trying to get the discussion going again on the list
on one of the remaining issues.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Göran Selander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:15:17 +0000

Hi Carsten,

It is not up to me to approve the agenda. I just find it remarkable that
in the process of handling review inputs to the actors draft, focus is
taken away from the actual reviews.

One comment inline:

>-- remaining issues (identify and, if possible, resolve on the spot)

Do we have a list of which review comments are covered in -01 and which
are not? I think compiling such a list would be well spent time until the
meeting.

Göran

---

From: "Kepeng Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:22:31 +0800

>As far as I can see, there is no official agenda yet for the Interim

In fact, I posted the agenda here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/2kvLOmVlrb8gcjX5chlwxOQUdcs

The intial agenda is:

1. Re-charter;
2. Use cases;
3. Actors;
4. AOB. 

It is a little bit simple, but hopefully it covers what we are going to
talk about.

Kind Regards
Kepeng

在 30/9/15 6:59 pm， "Carsten Bormann" <[email-masked]> 写入:

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:58:26 +0200

We didn’t do a formal disposition of comments.
-01 was just my attempt to translate the discussion the other authors had in Prague into a new version.

So here we are (in reverse order, from the mailing list as well as off-list comments):

— terminology (Jim, authors): not covered
— tasks (Jim): not covered, but maybe a pointer is enough
— avoid the term nonrepudiation (Jim): covered
    —> is “third-party verifiability” the term that expresses what we really mean?
— various editorial (Jim): covered
— store and forward (Jim): not covered, maybe add something to 2.3
— structure of section 2 (Jim): not covered (maybe too much work now)
— diagrams confusing about information flow (Jim): covered by additional explanation; diagrams unchanged
— intermittency (Jim): added a small note; is that enough?
— availability as a security objective (Jim): I think that is OK as it is
— need more discussion about what is being authenticated (Jim): Hmm.

The penchant of this WG for full-quoting makes it likely that I have missed some comments.

Some of the comments were on draft-gerdes-actors…, in particular, I don’t think we have fully incorporated Jim’s comments from 2015-08-10 (we always get stuck at the comment about the terminology :-).  E.g., the ones about the information content of section 6, 7, 8.  Some of these comments may be based on the assumption that every section in an architecture document needs to have *new* information — I’m however quite content with repeating some information that is already in there, now presented from a different vantage point or in a different organization.  This can make it more likely that people actually take note of the information.  Apart from that:

— We probably need to get rid of “security domain” and replace it by what we are actually trying to say (e.g., “under X’s control”, “speaking for X”,...), because that term means too many different things and we are using it variably in all those different meanings.

Grüße, Carsten

On 30 Sep 2015 at 13:15:37, Göran Selander ([email-masked]) wrote: