gmane.ietf.abfab

Re: AD review of eap-applicability

Sam Hartman — 2013-05-15T22:47:40

    Stephen> - Should this update 3748? Current IESG thinking (i.e.
    Stephen> want something else and someone will badger you:-) is that
    Stephen> if a reader of 3748 really ought also read this, then this
    Stephen> should update 3748; if its ok for a reader of 3748 to not
    Stephen> have to read this, then this shouldn't update 3748. I'd
    Stephen> guess that this should update 3847 but am ok if you say
    Stephen> not. I'd like to just double check that before IETF LC
    Stephen> since someone might want a 2nd LC otherwise.  (Safest is to
    Stephen> include it during IETF LC and the updates thing could
    Stephen> always be dropped later.)

This was brought up in WGLC.
The conclusion  I recall is that we should update 3748 and the document
would be changed prior to IETF LC:-)

    Stephen> - Mentioning the WG name in the abstract is usually wrong
    Stephen> since the WG will go away. Maybe say what abfab does
    Stephen> instead, e.g. like the charter does and say "...usage of
    Ste

AD review of eap-applicability

Stephen Farrell — 2013-05-15T22:35:34

Hiya,

Klaas sent on the publication request and my AD review
is below.

I don't see any show-stoppers here but would like if
the chairs/shepherd/authors/wg would comment before I
request IETF LC. Doesn't need loads of discussion
but I'd like just to know there's nothing here that
the wg didn't consider already.

Thanks,
S.


- Should this update 3748? Current IESG thinking (i.e.
want something else and someone will badger you:-) is
that if a reader of 3748 really ought also read this,
then this should update 3748; if its ok for a reader of
3748 to not have to read this, then this shouldn't update
3748. I'd guess that this should update 3847 but am ok if
you say not. I'd like to just double check that before
IETF LC since someone might want a 2nd LC otherwise.
(Safest is to include it during IETF LC and the updates
thing could always be dropped later.)

- Mentioning the WG name in the abstract is usually wrong
since the WG will go away. Maybe say what abfab does
instead, e.g. like the charter does and say "

Re: (not) scheduling in Berlin?

Leif Johansson — 2013-05-14T12:17:59

just to be on the safe side we requested a session but said
we were ok for friday - that way ppl won't scream at us if
we wind up cancelling

Re: (not) scheduling in Berlin?

Leif Johansson — 2013-04-29T14:48:03

Thx for the quick reply! Others?

Re: (not) scheduling in Berlin?

Sam Hartman — 2013-04-29T14:44:11

I'd recommend requesting a 1.5 hour session to discuss aaa-saml, and
arch.  If we end up canceling because we're already done, that would be
fine, but it would be unfortunate not to have the time on the agenda.

OK, guess I should go give you an answer on usability draft reviews:-)

(not) scheduling in Berlin?

Leif Johansson — 2013-04-29T14:41:11

We've just had (negative) confirmation from the folks that
might have been able to work on AAA/Diameter for abfab.

This means that a large portion of our outstanding work
has no takers and the chairs will work with the ADs to drop
this deliverable from our charter (all in accordance with
consensus from the last IETF meeting).

This begs the question: do we need to meet in Berlin? As
things are, we are finishing the eap appl. statement, which
unlocks a bunch of stuff on the RFC editors q eventually.

This leaves us talking about AAA SAML and the architecture
draft in Berlin. Is there enough meat to chew there?

        Cheers Leif

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

2013-04-27T17:18:19

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science


We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.


We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware


Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without

WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02 ended

Klaas Wierenga — 2013-04-26T11:52:45

Hi,

WGLC for eap-applicability has ended. At the meeting in Orlando there was consensus on the proposed text. On list only support for publication was expressed, with the exception of a a call for clarification about updating RFC3748, that can be handled in IETF Last Call or just prior to that. Therefore the chairs have decided to declare consensus on this document.

Klaas & Leif

WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02 ends tomorrow, please cast your votes

Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng — 2013-04-22T09:21:37

Folks,

WGLC ends tomorrow, we could do with some more "testimonies".

Klaas

FW: New Version Notification fordraft-ietf-abfab-arch-06.txt

Jim Schaad — 2013-04-18T18:43:39

This update contains the following:

1.  A number of grammar and spelling fixes
2.  A partial re-write of the Privacy Considerations section.

Jim

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Leif Johansson — 2013-04-10T13:04:46

Agree. This looks like something we can handle just before/at IETF LC.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Sam Hartman — 2013-04-10T01:31:57

OK. My preferred solution to your comment is to add updates to the
headers and abstract.
I think the intro is fairly clear on the point.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Jim Schaad — 2013-04-10T01:29:32

We could still be, it was not clear to me that this was still a true
statement.

The headers also do not explicitly state that we are doing an update to that
although the document does still speak in those terms. 

It was also not clear to me if this was still going to be a true statement
given the removal of all of the other update texts.

I would be happy if this document does do an update.  We need to make sure
that it is explicit to everybody that this is going to happen.

Jim

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Sam Hartman — 2013-04-10T01:14:52

    Jim> I support.  Minor comment.  This is really a question of
    Jim> process.  I think the first sentence in section 3 might need to
    Jim> be removed or modified if we are no longer updating RFC 3748.

I missed that we are no longer updating 3748.
how did that come about; I don't think I agree with that decision.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Jim Schaad — 2013-04-10T01:12:20

I support.

Minor comment.  This is really a question of process.  I think the first
sentence in section 3 might need to be removed or modified if we are no
longer updating RFC 3748.

Jim


(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
meeting

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Leif Johansson — 2013-04-09T13:00:05

These sound like minor last-call comments that Joe can incorporate
before IETF LC.

        Cheers Leif

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Sam Hartman — 2013-04-09T11:01:23

I support publication.
Section 4:

One minor error:

   fully mitigate the risk of NAS impersonation when these mechanisms
      are used, it is RECOMMENDED that mutual channel bindings be used to
         bind the authentications together as described in
    [I-D.ietf-emu-crypto-bind].  When doing channel binding it is
       REQUIRED that the authenticator is not able to modify the channel
          binding data passed between the peer to the authenticator as part of
     the authentication process.
     

Don't you mean cryptographic binding there?  

I also believe that a reference to RFC 6919 section 1 MAY WISH TO be
considered for section 1.1.  There are a lot of MUSTs is section 2. I
don't support any text changes to section 2.

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Rhys Smith — 2013-04-09T09:13:26


In favour.
--
Dr Rhys Smith
Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist
Cardiff University & Janet - the UK's research and education network

email: smith< at >cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith< at >ja.net
GPG: 0xDE2F024C

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Josh Howlett — 2013-04-09T08:41:45

I'm in favour.

On 09/04/2013 09:29, "Klaas Wierenga" <klaas< at >cisco.com> wrote:



Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a 
not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238

WGLC for draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02

Klaas Wierenga — 2013-04-09T08:29:44

Hi,

This e-mail starts a 2 week (ending April 23d) Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-02 (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability/). Version 02 reflects the consensus in the WG meeting in Orlando, but please explicitly state whether you are in favour of this version or not even if you have already done so in the meeting. 

Thanks,

Klaas and Leif

Re: Summary of proposed changes to eatapplicability.document

Leif Johansson — 2013-03-16T15:55:49

This proposed change was discussed in Orlando and there was no
consensus in the WG to make this change.

Joe will submit a new version of the eap applicability statement
with the changed we did have consensus on based on the list
discussions and the WG meeting.

        Cheers Leif