Subject: Re: [kitten] Consensus Calls

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:21:22 -0600

The consensus results from the 9-6-13 call (ending 9-20-13) was:

1. Consensus to progress the sasl-oauth draft with the GS2 related text 
removed.  However, Nico, had brought up during the call that CB related 
text should also removed until the base GS2 spec allows for mutual 
authentication outside of the mechanism.  Alexey had mentioned interest 
in having this support, but this is something that the long-term 
solution should provide.  I believe that we need further discussions on 
this point before we can determine if any other consensus call needs to 
be made here.

2. Consensus on adopting generic-naming-attributes.

3. No consensus on adopting krb5-pkcross.  We can always revisit this in 
the future as demand, interest, or resources change.

Shawn.
--
kitten co-chair

On 09/ 6/13 02:31 PM, Shawn M Emery wrote:
>
> The WG is making the following consensus calls (which were formulated 
> from Berlin's meeting held on August 1st):
>
> 1. In regards to draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth; should we remove the 
> GS2 related text from the draft and continue the proceed to shepherd 
> this as an RFC?
>
> a. Yes
> b. No
> c. Don't care or need more information
>
> 2. Should the WG recharter and adopt the 
> draft-williams-kitten-generic-naming-attributes draft?
>
> a. Yes
> b. No
> c. Don't care or need more information
>
> 3. Should the WG recharter and adopt the 
> draft-williams-kitten-krb5-pkcross draft?
>
> a. Yes
> b. No
> c. Don't care or need more information
>
> Please provide your input before September 20th.  Thank you.
>
> Shawn.
> -- 
> kitten co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>
>

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:20:38 -0500

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]> wrote:
> removed.  However, Nico, had brought up during the call that CB related text
> should also removed until the base GS2 spec allows for mutual authentication
> outside of the mechanism.  Alexey had mentioned interest in having this
> support, but this is something that the long-term solution should provide.
> I believe that we need further discussions on this point before we can
> determine if any other consensus call needs to be made here.

What was the consensus from the conference call we had about this?
Was there any and did we then fail to confirm on the list?

> 3. No consensus on adopting krb5-pkcross.  We can always revisit this in the
> future as demand, interest, or resources change.

I thought there were similar support/don't-care positions for (2) and
(3).  What was different in each case?

Nico
--

---

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:11:16 -0600

On 10/15/13 05:20 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Shawn M Emery<[email-masked]>  wrote:

We did not have a consensus call on this during the interim meeting.

The question is do you think that we need another consensus call to 
clarify that; GS2 mechanisms that don't support mutual authentication 
can not claim support for CB.  Therefore such mechanisms can not 
advertise -PLUS and therefore the draft should remove related text.  If 
this is noncontroversial or implied with the GS2 removal then I don't 
see the need to have another consensus call related to this.

> Was there any and did we then fail to confirm on the list?

See above.

> (3).  What was different in each case?

There were private responses as well.  For reference here were the 
consensus calls:

1. In regards to draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth; should we remove the GS2 
related text from the draft and continue the proceed to shepherd this as 
an RFC?

a. Yes
b. No

a. Yes
b. No

a. Yes
b. No

The following were the results from the consensus calls:

1.a: 8
1.c: 4

2.a: 5
2.c: 5

3.a: 4
3.c: 7

As you can see there were a few people more people that didn't care for 
the krb5-pkcross.  In addition I think that we are having difficulties 
in gathering resources to do what existing WG items that we have on the 
charter, as well as fixing the base specification for GS2.  I would love 
to be proved wrong.

Shawn.
--