IDentity Enabled Networks
charter-ietf-ideas-00-06

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-05 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Deborah Brungard Block

Block (2017-10-11)
As other ADs have noted, I don't think this group is ready to be chartered considering
the on-going community discussion/concerns raised and the on-going discussion
among the proponents on what they want to do.
Comment (2017-10-11)
No email
send info
FWIW - similar to Spencer, I had voted Yes to send the charter to the community for review with
the comment that I was concerned the use cases were very diverse and it was not clear if a
common approach would be achievable. The community's concerns on basic definitions (id,
mapping system, privacy) and the inability for the proponents to clarify with concise definitions, I now
don't think this is ready to be a working group.

Instead of continuing to boil the ocean on use cases to justify motivation, it would be more
helpful to focus on what specifically are the IETF requirements for the mapping system.

The dashed list is also boiling the ocean, it needs to be more scoped, e.g. "A security analysis
of the complete system" doesn't sound appropriate for a Framework document.
The security and operational considerations need to be defined up-front
as will scope the work. All of these are listed as "some areas that must be considered"
but this is not a research group, it needs to be much more focused for a working group.

The charter describes a target of a common infrastructure and <one> protocol. It gives no
indication that the work needs to take into consideration the work already done or the
expectations of how it will work with the current applications and solutions.

And no explanation of why at this time a single solution is viewed as possible or why
a single solution is the correct answer for a diversity of use cases.

(Benoît Claise) Block

Block (2017-10-12)
At this point in time, I believe the community should meet in Singapore to discuss IDEAS.
Whether this is a BoF or WG, I guess that same points would be on the table.
So use the BoF time. 
The BoF objectives could be:
1. What are the privacy issues? 
2. If we need to address those, how? (no need for the full solution, but potential tracks)
3. Based on 1 and 2, should we charter IDEAS? 
4. If yes, work on the charter text

Alissa Cooper Block

Block (2017-10-11)
I do not think this group is ready to be chartered at this time given the significant objections from the community. 

There seem to be two key problems with the work as proposed:

(1) The work is insufficiently motivated. The claims about the need for the mapping system and the identity management system envisioned here do not appear to be backed up by those who have developed and deployed ID/LOC separation protocols. Nor do there seem to be compelling arguments that the framework that this proposed WG would produce would be the motivator for further interoperable deployments.

(2) The work proposed here seems as if it would have a substantial intrinsic impact on user privacy if widely deployed. In cases like these, I don't believe it's sufficient to say that the WG will analyze the situation and propose mitigations; the work proposal itself needs to explain how the design of the infrastructure envisioned is going to mitigate what seem like obvious attacks on privacy that the proposed designs open up.

I think further discussions of this work (in private, on the list, at a bar in Singapore, or at a potential future BoF) would need to resolve both of the above issues in order to address concerns raised by the community.

(Kathleen Moriarty) Block

Block (2017-10-10)
I think there should be another BoF to discuss the privacy aspects and let the community have a chance to voice opinions and fully hash this out.  I suspect we'll see appeals (rightfully so) if that does not happen.

(Eric Rescorla) Block

Block (2017-10-10)
I agree with Kathleen's block.

In addition, based on the discussion on the IETF list, I do not believe there is consensus to charter this WG.

(Adam Roach) Block

Block (2017-10-11)
I agree with Kathleen's evaluation and second her proposal to have additional privacy-focused discussions around the charter language prior to moving forward.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Ben Campbell) Abstain

Comment (2017-10-11)
No email
send info
I agree with the comments that this should have further discussion about privacy. An additional BLOCK on that point doesn't seen necessary.

I agree with Spencer that we don't seem to be talking about _this_ charter anymore. I think that ideally we should withdraw this from consideration, and readdress it with a new charter proposal. So I'm ABSTAINing.

(Spencer Dawkins) Abstain

Comment (2017-10-11)
No email
send info
I'm seeing offers of text changes from proponents. I'd Defer this one, but that only allows two weeks for the conversation to stabilized. So, Abstain.

FWIW, I balloted Yes to send the charter to the community for comments, and was hoping to ballot Yes for approval, but since I don't know what text I'm balloting on, that's the best I can offer.

I look forward to continued progress (because the discussion is certainly continuing).