Subject: [KAML] Reminder: BOF proposals to me by October 1

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hartman)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:30:15 -0400 (EDT)

Just a reminder that if you want a BOF at IETF 70, you need an
internet draft (presumably a problem statement) and a BOF proposal to
me by October 1.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
KAML mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kaml

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:00:30 +0200

> internet draft (presumably a problem statement) and a BOF proposal to
I would suggest that we continue working on the problem-statement
draft, hold another informal meeting in Vancouver and aim for a wg-
formation BOF (if that is where consensus winds up) at the IETF
after Vancouver.

How does that sound? Who would turn up for an informal meeting
in Vancouver?

    Chers Leif

---

From: "Paul Rabinovich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:12:56 -0400

Leif,

	IMO it's preferable to keep the LoA piece under the Kerberos WG
rather than under the KAML WG since - in the short-term - out-of-the-box
SAML 2.0 seems not to be able to help with LoA. Whatever we design, however,
should be extensible and eventually support/take advantage of/migrate to
SAML 2.x.

Paul Rabinovich | Software Architect | EXOSTAR LLC
13530 Dulles Technology Dr., Suite 200, Herndon, VA 20171

PH +1.703.793.7808 | FAX +1.703.793.7741

-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [KAML] Reminder: BOF proposals to me by October 1

    Chers Leif

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:48:03 +0200

> SAML 2.0 seems not to be able to help with LoA. Whatever we design, however,
I think you are wrong. There are at least two ways to model LoA
using SAML - using an AC class or using an attribute.

    Cheers Leif

---

From: "Tom Scavo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:52:35 -0400

> using SAML - using an AC class or using an attribute.

That's correct.  If you decide to use AuthnContext, that means the
Kerberos-bound SAML assertion would contain an AuthnStatement.  On the
other hand, an Attribute would require an AttributeStatement.
(Personally, I think AuthnContext is the way to go for LoA, but the
jury's still out on that issue.)

Tom

---

From: "Paul Rabinovich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:42:32 -0400

Leif,

	Based on your feedback I'll hold off sending my proposal as an I-D.

	Regards,
	PR

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Scavo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:53 PM
To: Leif Johansson
Cc: Paul Rabinovich; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [KAML] Reminder: BOF proposals to me by October 1

Tom

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:55:01 -0700

Not yet in a position to evaluate any proposal against possible real  
usage.  Please post times for IETF discussions, though.

> jury's still out on that issue.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:18:08 +0200

> usage.  Please post times for IETF discussions, though.
We might aim for an informal meeting after the regular sessions close on
monday or tuesday - the agenda isn't online yet so its a bit early. We could
ask for a formal BOF slot but I'm a bit worried about that since the IETF
has already had a couple of exploratory bofs in the identity space - dix and
wae.

Personally I think it is better to have a couple of drafts and a draft
charter
for a BOF ready for the next IETF if we decide we need a wg to work on
this stuff.

    Cheers Leif