[Openid-specs-risc] First things first for RISC

Tue Feb 21 17:41:56 UTC 2017

Mike: I agree it would be great for the RISC WG to focus on the data being exchanged.

Phil: If I indicated that I was ignoring your individual contributions, that was not my intent.

At the last F2F for the RISC WG, a number of us expressed concerns that the management model looked overly complex for what we perceived as what was required for RISC.

While it would be convenient for RISC to use what comes out of SECEVENT, the work from SECEVENT needs to meet the requirements of RISC.

Today, I am not clear what the requirements are for RISC. I think we made progress in our discussion, but given the other thread I am having with Phil on the list, I don’t think we are all on the same page.

While I agree with the preference to using and building upon existing standards, I don’t want to use a hammer on a screw. If we are not clear on the requirements, then how do we know that something built on SCIM will actually solve the problem?

/Dick

On 2/21/17, 9:27 AM, someone claiming to be "Openid-specs-risc on behalf of Phil Hunt (IDM)" <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>> wrote:

Mike

Apologies if this sounds harsh. I want to be open and clear.

We have a draft proposal on the table. Re-using an existing protocol was the basis that Kathleen Moriarty agreed to proceed(the secevents area director).  The IESG specifically wanted us to use NETCONF. Apparently, the IETF is sensitive to the number of mgmt protocols being defined for specific purpose.  The agreement with IESG to proceed was based on profiling scim which is closest to our community's stacks with many open source implementations available. Code is available now. All that is needed is agreement on the configuration schema and people can implement and try it out.

Despite all this, Dick seems to want to ignore individual contributions without debate and start fresh with no technical reason for doing so.

If we are going to design yet another protocol there needs to be a strong technical and/or legal reason to make the amount of work worthwhile.  Do not underestimate what it takes to write interoperable http CRUD/Restful specs when there as many server implementers as clients. Restful protocols are using implementer by one party. RISC and SECEVENTS is different. There are as many service providers as clients. I for one do not want want to implement a bunch of custom connectors that are only loosely interoperable.

Best regards,

Phil

On Feb 20, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
I have some observations and recommendations to share from the RISC face-to-face meeting that I attended on Thursday.  I’ll say up front that I believe that the mission of RISC is incredibly important, which is why I’m taking the time to write this now.

The thing that most surprised me about the working group meeting was that none of the time was used to enable trial exchanges of incident and compromise data among the working group participants.  I had expected that to be the working group’s highest priority – especially in light of the preliminary exchanges between Google and Microsoft being so encouraging.  As such, I expected that work on producing standard representations of RISC data would be foremost on the agenda – something that didn’t occur.

Instead, my observation was that essentially all the time was spent on defining mechanisms for establishing and administering feeds of data (and defining terminology for those feeds).  I would assert that this is not where the RISC WG can add the most value.  Indeed, I would suggest that the working group make a deliberate decision not to work on delivery mechanisms, but instead to encourage the IETF SecEvent working group to do that work.  Instead, choose to spend your time doing whatever it takes to make numerous data exchanges happen as soon as possible, so the working group can learn from them.  Heck, FTP or HTTPS are fine transports for these initial exchanges.  Actual feeds aren’t needed yet.

It would be my hope that the working group can make a goal to have completed at least 20 bi-lateral RISC data exchanges involving at least 8 participants by the Internet Identity Workshop in October, 2017 – with at least half of these exchanges using draft-standard RISC data representations.  And hopefully talk about the lessons learned during IIW.  That would be something to get truly excited about!

I hope that RISC will choose to focus first on Risk and Incident Sharing and Coordination and leave defining transports to others, as that is not where RISC adds the most value.

                                                       -- Mike

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-risc mailing list
Openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-risc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20170221/77433efe/attachment-0001.html>