• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: abfab

Current state: Submitted to IESG for Publication

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-09-26 11:30 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-09-25 16:18 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress

2012-09-25 16:17 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2012-09-25 15:46 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

2012-09-25 15:46 Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

2012-09-25 15:46 Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-09-25 15:46 Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-09-25 15:45 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-09-25 09:21 Rhys Smith

New revision available

2012-09-13 10:58 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation

2012-09-13 08:18 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-09-13 07:42 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2012-09-12 18:36 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2012-09-12 13:33 Wesley Eddy

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy

2012-09-12 08:36 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant

2012-09-12 02:18 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling

2012-09-11 15:31 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley

2012-09-11 10:35 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks

2012-09-11 05:51 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
I support the publication of this draft.

Adding federated authentication to IPP [RFC3229] (and other relevant
protocols) would enable this kind of remote printing service without
the administrative overhead of credentialing these visitors (who, of
course, may well one time visitors to the organisation).

Are you sure it's the right RFC?

Regarding the next two comments, take them or leave them, up to the WG authors/chairs/AD

1. There are multiple sentences that speak about the ABFAB architecture and specifications.

- The goal of this document is to document a selection
of the wide variety of these contexts whose user experience could be
improved through the use of technologies based on the ABFAB
architecture and specifications.

- This document enumerates some of these use cases,
describing how technologies based on the the ABFAB architecture
[I-D.lear-abfab-arch] and specifications could be used.

- This document enumerates some of these use cases,
describing how technologies based on the the ABFAB architecture
[I-D.lear-abfab-arch] and specifications could be used.

- ABFAB could help in this context as its specifications would enable
federated authentication for a variety of non-web protocols, ...

- The use of ABFAB technologies in this case would enable both the
front or back end attribute exchange required to provide subject
attributes.

- etc...

You chose to have a use cases RFC before the architecture RFC. That's your choice, and that's fine!
However, it would be nice to explain in one paragraph (potentially with a figure) how you envision the architecture:
organization A,
organization B,
a user who authenticates in the org A and needs to access the information in org B
a RADIUS connection from org. A to org B. with SAML content within the RADIUS data.
I had to dig outside of the draft to find this information, but it helped me tremendously to start to understand the technology challenges behind the use cases.
In 5 years from now, which RFC should a new newcomer read first to start understanding what the WG does? Is it this one or the architecture?

2. A sentence or two regarding the relationship with the ABFAB and SCIM use cases (in this document or in a different subsequent document, not sure)
As far as I can tell:
SCIM: pre-provisioning identity management across domains
ABFAB: Single Sign On across domains

2012-09-11 05:51 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.