Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments
charter-ietf-ace-02
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes
We can work through current discussions and I believe we can resolve them while in IESG review. We can also update the proposed milestones.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes
I think there's some good discussion ongoing and am fine with that being worked out during IETF review.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection
Thanks, for addressing my substantive concerns.
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
There is some lack of clarity in this charter about whether the group wants to standardize One Solution to Rule them All, or multiple solutions. It sounds mostly like one solution, except for the paragraph that begins "Existing authentication and authorization protocols will be used and re-applied ...." It would be good for the charter to clarify this.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
I would generally ask whether the requirements and use cases (r&uc) document needs to be output from the WG or can (at the WG's and AD's discretion) simply be an internal document that never gets published as an RFC (I don't think it needs to be), but the suggested milestones make me even more convinced that there is no need to publish the document: It's clear that the development of the protocol will be in parallel with the development of the r&uc. Given that, it's clear that the charter is not saying that the r&uc need to be nailed down before work can commence. So I say make the submission to the IESG and publication of the r&uc optional. No need for make-work if it turns out not to be interesting in the long run.
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
I share the concerns of some other ADs that this charter is too broad. It's unclear to me what exactly they want to do here, and why all of the existing access control protocols are unsuitable for it. Nonetheless, I'm OK with this going out for review.
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection