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

From: John Merrells <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:28:21 -0800

Name of the BOF

Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)

Area:

Applications

Chairs:

Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
John Merrells <[email-masked]>

Sponsoring Area Directors:

Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>
Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>

BOF Description

Objectives

1. To consider the creation of a new IETF working group within the  
Applications Area  titled "Digital Identity Exchange".  The proposed  
charter for such a working group is referenced below.

2. To discuss and hone the scope of a DIX working group.

3. To discuss the architectural requirements that derive from the  
laws of identity identified by ‘The Identity Gang’ at ‘The Berkman  
Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School’. Referenced below.

4. To discuss existing architectural implementations within the  
context of these requirements. An individual submission Internet  
Draft that describes one such implementation is referenced below,  
named ‘draft-merrells-dix-00.txt’

5. To determine if there is enough interest and commitment to form a  
Working Group and if so to then discuss what the specific goals and  
milestones of that working group would be.

BOF Agenda

Introduction and Agenda Discussion (5 min)
Scope Discussion (10 min)
Identity Laws and Architectural Requirements (10 min)
Existing Architecture Presentations (30 min)
Call for Participation (5 min)
Deliverables Discussion (15 min )
Open Discussion (any remaining time)

Documents

Charter Draft: http://dixs.org/index.php/DIX_Charter
DIX Protocol ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrells- 
dix-00.txt
DIX Protocol ID: http://dixs.org/index.php/DIX_Protocol_ID
Identity Laws: http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2004/12/09/ 
thelaws.html

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

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:38:38 -0500

> Name of the BOF

I dont see a preliminary discussion list on this BOF. That's IMHO is 
customary.

I'm wondering what is the relationship of this proposed work to SAML or 
the work of Liberty Alliance.

http://www.projectliberty.org/

I was frankly astounded that there is nothing in the Charter Draft or 
associated documents that mentions the huge body of work already 
existent on Federated Identity Management.

Could someone summarize the problem statement this proposed WG attempts 
to solve, more specifically what is lacking in existing Federated 
Identity Management efforts that the IETF may have some relative 
expertise in solving?

> 3. To discuss the architectural requirements that derive from the laws 
> of identity identified by ‘The Identity Gang’ at ‘The Berkman Center for 
> Internet & Society, Harvard Law School’. Referenced below.
> 
> 4. To discuss existing architectural implementations within the context 
> of these requirements. An individual submission Internet Draft that 
> describes one such implementation is referenced below, named 
> ‘draft-merrells-dix-00.txt’
> 
> DIX Protocol ID: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrells-dix-00.txt
> Identity Laws: http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2004/12/09/thelaws.html
> 

-- 

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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:46:08 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: John Merrells
> Cc: [email-masked]; Ted Hardie; Hollenbeck, Scott; Lisa Dusseault
> Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)
> 
> John Merrells wrote:
> > Name of the BOF
> 
> 

There's a list that's been around since approximately Vancouver.  Archives
included:

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix

I'll let John answer your other questions. ;-)

-Scott-

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:02:54 +0000

Finding out what BOFs are being plotted is not very easy AFAIK.  In the 
case below there doesn't appear to have been any widespread public 
announcement of the start of the mailing list and I suspect that is the 
case for many others.

Obviously an announcement of intent to the IETF list or the Announce 
list is one way for people to tell the world. For those who can't cope 
with the traffic on the IETF list and to provide a more permanent 
reminder, it would help to have a 'prospective new work' page on the 
IETF web site where new pre-BOF mailing lists could be publicised with a 
time limit so the advert is removed at the end of 1st or 2nd IETF 
meeting after it was first started (or when a BOF occurs or the WG 
starts up) to avoid the list getting overly long.

Regards,
Elwyn

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:27:24 -0800

Elwyn Davies wrote:
> list is one way for people to tell the world. 

Indeed.

The current model for BOFs tends to view the first one as a free shot.  No 
history required.

Given how poorly such first meetings tend to go, I am at a loss to understand 
why this model persists. Remember that a BOF is for gauging community interest 
in the working group.  That simply is not possible when the topic has no 
meaningful IETF online history.

I am in the camp that believes that IETF meeting time is extremely valuable and 
that the IETF is still predicated on email list discussion as its primary venue(s).

As such -- particularly a BOF targeting working group formation -- we should 
require that a pre-wg BOF be required to have:

    a) formed an online discussion, some months ahead of any possible BOF

    b) its formation announced on ietf-announce

    b) put forward a sample charter on that discussion list

    c) conducted discussion of that charter, prior to the BOF.

That way, there is a basis for recruiting informed participation, as well as 
gauging a degree of community interest.

d/

ps. I suggest that the DIX BOF is a particularly good candidate for going 
poorly. Online identity has a history for which a description of "problematic" 
would be a vast understatement.  Even better, the IETF's track record in the 
arena of digitizing human constructs is, well, limited.

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:45:44 -0600

I am not sure Dave's list is a complete list of stuff to remember, but it's 
definitely a list of stuff to remember.

I'm not quite sure where the discussion forum for 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt is, 
but I really like the collection of stuff to remember that it contains so 
far.

Not sure who has seen this draft yet, but if you've seen 00, 01 is an 
improvement, too. The change I like best was the breaking some steps into 
finer-grained "stuff" (we tend to tell someone "talk to the AD", and neglect 
minor points like what ADs look like, where to find them, how to know which 
one to talk to, etc.)

I'm not sure where comments on this draft are supposed to go (Brian and 
Thomas are talking), but if people wanted to start by reading 01, that would 
be pretty helpful, when the location gets figured out.

My understanding of the scope of this draft is that it's descriptive (makes 
recommendations for working in the current system). There's probably some 
reasonable changes to the current system that could be proposed, too, but 
that doesn't look like the focus, for now.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> Given how poorly such first meetings tend to go, I am at a loss to 
> understand why this model persists. Remember that a BOF is for gauging 
> community interest in the working group.  That simply is not possible when 
> the topic has no meaningful IETF online history.
>
> I am in the camp that believes that IETF meeting time is extremely 
> valuable and that the IETF is still predicated on email list discussion as 
> its primary venue(s).
>
> As such -- particularly a BOF targeting working group formation -- we 
> should require that a pre-wg BOF be required to have:
>
> That way, there is a basis for recruiting informed participation, as well 
> as gauging a degree of community interest.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:25:37 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> if you've seen 00,

Yes, it could be referenced in the next procdoc-roadmap and
the next taobis (-04 was published the day before yesterday).
 
> I'm not sure where comments on this draft are supposed to
> go

If you find it out please post it here (dito for taobis, for
procdoc-roadmap it's probably pesci).

                              Bye, Frank

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:39:38 -0500

For any document, you can always send comments to the author(s)... and
so far, I believe I've been quite responsive to comments...

But if you want to post publically, here (the ietf list) is as good a
place as any, since the document isn't associated with any WG.

i.e., for draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt.

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:25:11 -0600

From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>

> so far, I believe I've been quite responsive to comments...

Yes, very responsive, and both revisions have been pretty helpful in 
facilitating related discussions. Thanks!

Spencer

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:40:55 +0100

Thomas Narten wrote:
 
> you can always send comments to the author(s)...

Yes, but my only "comment" is that I liked your draft,
and that adding a reference to it in one or both of
the two IETF "list of lists" (taobis + procdoc) might
be a good idea,
                      Thanks, Frank