Subject: [Ace] Milestones

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:12:54 +0100

Hi all,

we have two milestones in our charter and we would like to get your
feedback about the expected steps to finish those items and whether the
indicated dates are realistic.

** Mar 2016	Submit "An Architecture for Authorization in Constrained
Environments" to the IESG for publication as a Informational RFC.

--> Carsten said that we need feedback from the reviewers who
volunteered at the Yokohama IETF meeting. Sandeep and Robert said that
they will do their best to review the document in time before the
deadline. I will drop a mail to Robin Wilton, who also volunteered. I
dropped him a reminder already. Additionally, Michael volunteered.

I would say that we might need to adjust the milestone to April.

** May 2016 Submit "Authentication and Authorization Solution"
specification to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.

--> Here the question is what we expect to have completed by May.
Here are possible options:

 * Specification completed.
 * Reference implementation available.
 * Interoperability testing done.
 * Formal verification of the security parts.

Also, the amount of specification work depends a bit on your feedback on
the items we are going to ask feedback for.

It would be good to know whether you have an opinion about these issues.

Ciao
Hannes & Kepeng

---

From: Göran Selander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 09:19:06 +0000

>It would be good to know whether you have an opinion about these issues.

I think this time line is too optimistic for any of the above. Considering
that we spent most of last year to determine which of the candidates
solutions we were going to take as a "starting point", and that we have
received many reviews calling for different types of considerations and
extensions, and the ongoing discussion about handling the different
deployment options, I think it is reasonable to give this work item more
time to complete.

Göran

---

From: "Kepeng Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 09:09:05 +0800

> I think this time line is too optimistic for any of the above.

+1. This is also my personal observation.

Kepeng (Individual)

在 3/3/16 5:19 pm， "Göran Selander" <[email-masked]> 写入:

>_______________________________________________
>Ace mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

---

From: Samuel Erdtman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:00:09 +0100

+1

//Samuel

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:12:13 +0100

Thanks for your feedback.

I would, however, also need more specific feedback from you and answers
to the other questions as well.

In particular, it would be good to know what you consider a precondition
for sending the specification to the IESG.

I would also like to hear your feedback on what you consider a realistic
milestone.

Ciao
Hannes

On 03/09/2016 07:00 AM, Samuel Erdtman wrote:
> +1
> 
> //Samuel
> 
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Kepeng Li <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     在 3/3/16 5:19 pm， "Göran Selander" <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> 写入:
> 
>     >
>     >
>     ><[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>     >
>     >>
>     Considering
>     >[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Göran Selander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:55:23 +0000

Hi Hannes,

Time plans are always tricky but here is an attempt.

There is still a discussion on the exact scope of the work. Assume the WG
agrees on the need for a specification of a framework and (at least)
two“profiles” - mapping to implementable specifications of one or more
deployment examples (which may be in the same or separate documents from
the framework). The upcoming f2f meeting should hopefully be able to
progress this discussion so the WG can nail down the detailed scope a
month or so after the meeting. Then drafts reflecting this decision should
be on the table before IETF 96. With some active reviewing they could be
in a shape that it would be interesting for others than the authors to
start implementing after summer vacation. After that is becomes more hazy
and dependent on what is then on the table. Some sort of interoperability
testing at IETF 97 Hackathon? Does November sound like a reasonable time
for WGLC?

Göran