Transfer dIGital cREdentialS Securely
charter-ietf-tigress-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-07-19
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-01.txt |
2022-07-19
|
00-08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved from External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat) |
2022-07-19
|
00-08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the charter |
2022-07-19
|
00-08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-07-19
|
00-08 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2022-07-18
|
00-08 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-08.txt |
2022-07-14
|
00-07 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-07-14
|
00-07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-07-13
|
00-07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-07-13
|
00-07 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-07-13
|
00-07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] is it possible to be specific about the "share"? like what are we sharing? It is clear that we are transfering credential but … [Ballot comment] is it possible to be specific about the "share"? like what are we sharing? It is clear that we are transfering credential but "initiate a share" is not that clear. |
2022-07-13
|
00-07 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-07-13
|
00-07 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-07.txt |
2022-07-12
|
00-06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of charter-ietf-tigress-06 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Paragraph 1 ``` The WG charter includes the definition and standardization … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of charter-ietf-tigress-06 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Paragraph 1 ``` The WG charter includes the definition and standardization of a protocol that ``` Since this *is* the WG charter, this text reads a bit odd. ### Paragraph 1 ``` Privacy goals include: ``` The text below talks about "share" when the text above talked about "transfer". Suggest to align the terminology. ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Paragraph 5 ``` - * Aside from potentially the IP address, the relay server should not learn the + * Aside from network-level metadata, the relay server should not learn information about the ``` #### Paragraph 9 ``` - * Ensure the sender has intent to share (proof of the fact that the share + * Ensure the sender has the intent to share (proof of the fact that the share + ++++ ``` ### Grammar/style #### Paragraph 0 ``` nd or a family member. A private home owner may want to provide access to th ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This noun normally spelled as one word. #### Paragraph 24 ``` form the credential transfer in a secure manner. The protocol will use appro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "securely" to avoid wordiness. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2022-07-12
|
00-06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2022-07-12
|
00-06 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-07-12
|
00-06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-07-12
|
00-06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-07-11
|
00-06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2022-07-14 from 2022-06-30 |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready for external review" ballot |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat) from Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review) |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG new work message text was changed |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2022-07-01
|
00-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2022-06-30
|
00-06 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-06.txt |
2022-06-30
|
00-05 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-06-30
|
00-05 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-05.txt |
2022-06-30
|
00-04 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-04.txt |
2022-06-30
|
00-03 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] I agree with other comment as to whether the requirements/constraints on the solution should be listed in the charter. E.g., presumably this means … [Ballot comment] I agree with other comment as to whether the requirements/constraints on the solution should be listed in the charter. E.g., presumably this means that if the WG cannot come up with a solution that meets the constraints then it must close or recharter to progress? Some of the constraints also seem a little odd, or unclear: * Allow a sender and a recipient to perform multiple round trip communications within a limited time frame Is the requirement about performing round trip communications, or to be able to complete the transfer in a short bounded time? * Not require that both the sender and recipient be online at the same time What is meant by being online? Is this about having network connectivity to the relay server? * Support opaque message content based on the credential type It wasn't clear to me exactly what this is, or why carrying arbitrary opaque data is an absolute requirement? Is that about carrying some associated message related to why the credential is being delegated? Rob |
2022-06-30
|
00-03 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] I agree with Murray's comment that the second paragraph makes it appear a whole lot like the solution is already decided, now all … [Ballot comment] I agree with Murray's comment that the second paragraph makes it appear a whole lot like the solution is already decided, now all we have to do is figure out how to back into it. :-( Other than that, my only other comment is that this is the only time I've ever seen an IETF charter feel the need to disclaim device UI considerations. Surely that goes without saying? |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] I think the must do things should be part of working group consensus decisions on requirements, and does not need to be part … [Ballot comment] I think the must do things should be part of working group consensus decisions on requirements, and does not need to be part of charter text. The goals seems sufficient to me. |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-06-29
|
00-03 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-03.txt |
2022-06-29
|
00-02 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2022-06-29
|
00-02 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-02.txt |
2022-06-28
|
00-01 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] The second paragraph reads like a bunch of decisions have already been made. I suggest this should be rewritten to specify requirements (if … [Ballot comment] The second paragraph reads like a bunch of decisions have already been made. I suggest this should be rewritten to specify requirements (if that's appropriate at this stage) rather than enumerating things that appear to be properties of an already preferred solution. |
2022-06-28
|
00-01 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-06-28
|
00-01 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-06-28
|
00-01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Interesting pieces of work that will be quite useful. Here are some quick comments: The 1st paragraph is written using "you", I would … [Ballot comment] Interesting pieces of work that will be quite useful. Here are some quick comments: The 1st paragraph is written using "you", I would prefer to read it as the 3rd person. 2nd paragraph, in "Note that neither private keys", the "note that" looks strange in a charter, suggest to replace it by "Note: neither private keys". The MD format (bullet list) is broken in a couple of places. It is unclear what "sensitive details of the share" are. The charter has privacy & security "goals" and "considerations", while I am not a native English speaker, I wonder those 2 words are synonyms. Should 'requirements' be used ? |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-06-30 |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | WG action text was changed |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | WG review text was changed |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | WG review text was changed |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Ready for external review" ballot |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | State changed to Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal Steering Group/IAB Review) from Draft Charter |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | Added charter milestone "Submit secure credential transfer protocol to the IESG for publication", due December 2023 |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | Added charter milestone "WG adoption of the secure credential transfer protocol", due December 2022 |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | Initial review time expires 2022-07-04 |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | State changed to Draft Charter from Not currently under review |
2022-06-27
|
00-01 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-01.txt |
2022-06-16
|
00-00 | Roman Danyliw | New version available: charter-ietf-tigress-00-00.txt |