Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond Web (ABFAB) Use Cases
draft-ietf-abfab-usecases-05

[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

[Ballot comment]
In section 3 maybe we could remove the marketing paragraph because it's not really relevant why somebody might use the cloud - the fact is they do so this is not needed:

  The main benefits of cloud computing are that it offers on-demand
  services with pay per-use removing the need for users/organizations
  to build and maintain their own hardware or infrastructure, and that
  it allows for the dynamic scaling of resources required for solving
  specific tasks.

[Ballot comment]
Nit:
-- Section 3.1 --

Lots of editorial stuff, but it'll all be sorted by the RFC Editor.  One nit that might not be is this one:

  o  Common application software such as email, shared storage,
      business applications such as Customer Relationship Management
      (CRM) or scientific applications ("Software as a Service", or
      Saas).

The last letter of "SaaS" needs to be capitalized.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-abfab-usecases-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are no
IANA Actions which must be completed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond web (ABFAB) Use Cases) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Application Bridging for
Federated Access Beyond web WG (abfab) to consider the following
document:
- 'Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond web (ABFAB) Use
Cases'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Federated identity is typically associated with Web-based services at
  present, but there is growing interest in its application in non Web-
  based contexts.  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.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-abfab-usecases/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-abfab-usecases/ballot/

Some references need updating: RFC 2060 -> RFC 3501 and
RFC 2821 ->RFC 5321.

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational

This draft documents a number of use-cases that form the motivation for the technical specifications in abfab, so informational is the right type.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Federated identity is typically associated with Web-based services at
present, but there is growing interest in its application in non Web-
based contexts. 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.


Working Group Summary

There has been some WG discussion around the Telecoms use case and the extent to which it should figure in this draft. The current text is WG consensus on that.

Document Quality

Given that this is a use-cases document there are no implementation plans. The contributors of use-cases have been credited. The document has been presented on a number of occasions which have led to inclusion of the Plasma and Telecoms use cases. The WGLC did not result in any voicing of discent, nor in consent for that matter. But that is probably not a problem given earlier on list and at meeting discussions and the nature of the document.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Klaas Wierenga
AD: Stephen Farrell

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have read the document and checked for consistency with rest of the abfab work. Checked the ID nits and verified with the author the IPR status.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The nature of the document (use cases) is such that not all parts appeal equally to everyone in the WG. I do believe that the presented use cases are supported by the WG as valid use cases.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Informational references to RFC2060 and 2821 are to obsolete RFCs and need to be updated to resp. RFCs 3501 and 3521. Draft-freeman-plasma-requirements is now called
draft-freeman-message-access-control-req.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, to I-D.lear-abfab-arch. This document is hopefully ready for WGLC by the next IETF.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

This is not a standards track document, i.e. N/A?

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

N/A

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A