Subject: RE: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:46:25 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)

[snip]

> In simplistic (but productive and non-sarcastic) terms, I 
> think things reduce to 
> the hurdles that an AD can/should impose prior to approving a 
> BOF.  Some topics 
> warrant higher hurdles.  There is ample basis for viewing DIX 
> as one of them, IMO.
> 
> I think the title of Thomas Narten's draft is particularly 
> apt, because it 
> focuses on productivity rather than formal process.

OK, that's a reasonable discussion point.  Let me explain where I'm
coming from in approving the request.

I agree that this is a contentious topic.  I explained the issues to
several people when I was approached to hold a BOF at the Vancouver
meeting.  I didn't approve it then, primarily for the very reasons
you've described.  I approved the BOF this time not so much to consider
a working group charter (note that the agenda does not include a "review
charter proposal" item), but as an opportunity for the proponents to
collect input from the broader IETF community in a high bandwidth
environment after they have had a few months of discussion time to focus
their proposal.  There *is* a charter proposal floating around, but I
personally believe (and list discussion seems to agree) that there are
still a number of topics to explore before a charter can be seriously
considered.  I'm hoping that a BOF will help to identify those topics
and other questions to be answered.

In hindsight I probably should have recommended that the existence of
the mailing list be announced much earlier.  Earlier input from people
like yourself, Steve Bellovin, and others who have shared opinions would
be better.  Since that didn't happen, though, my goal for the BOF is to
try to capture a list of actions and issues for the proponents to
consider as they developing their proposals.  I fully expect that a
second BOF will be required before a working group can be considered.

-Scott-

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:25:12 -0500

> consider as they developing their proposals.

Such as, Is existing work on Identity Management such as SAML, Liberty 
etal relevant to the problem statement as defined?

How should a proposed solution integrate with the needs of the RAI area 
where this topic is under active discussion?

That for a start ..please add to this if necessary.

   I fully expect that a
> second BOF will be required before a working group can be considered.

On this I'm in complete agreement.

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<