[Openid-specs-igov] Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications

Mon Sep 11 17:25:22 UTC 2017

The OIDF vote as a standard not a implementors draft, to be clear.

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Grassi, Paul A. (Fed) <paul.grassi at nist.gov> wrote:
> 
> Depends on what u mean adopted. Per the new 53 once nist says it's approved its part of the framework. That said, we won't do that until it passes the oidf vote. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Peter Alterman <palterman at safe-biopharma.org <mailto:palterman at safe-biopharma.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps stating the obvious, but the igov protocol doesn't become part of the USG framework until/unless it is formally adopted.  
>> That step shouldn't be taken for granted or ignored.
>> regards,
>> Peter
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Peter Alterman, Ph.D.
>> Chief Operating Officer
>> SAFE-BioPharma Association
>> cell: 1-301-943-7452
>> 
>> FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: 
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/SAFE_BioPharma>      &   LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/safe-biopharma-association?trk=nav_account_sub_nav_company_admin>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, John Bradley via Openid-specs-igov <openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
>> I think Phil is referring to the IETF track that VOT is currently on per RFC2026
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026>
>> 
>> VOT did have several BOFs as I recall but for whatever reason couldn’t justify a working group and no other working group was a good fit.  The internet society was interested in it and a security AD agreed to sponsor it.
>> 
>> The guidelines for AD sponsors drafts are https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html>
>> 
>> The experimental status theoretically impacts the amount of review the IESG will do.  In reality they all go through last call and IESG review.
>> 
>> AD sponsors docs can be standards track.
>> 
>> If I parse Phill correctly he would like the document to be standards track to provide the appropriate gravitas.
>> 
>> This is not a group that can make those sorts of decisions but this group can provide feedback to the document shepherd and responsible AD.
>> 
>> The current track is the fastest to get a RFC though makes as experimental. 
>> Leif and I did discuss the Working group opption at the last IETF in Prague.  
>> Doing that would slow things down perhaps by a year or more.
>> 
>> I suppose the middle road would be to get out an experimental one, and then take that to a WG for refinement on the standards track.
>> 
>> In Any event I get the feeling that Oracle would like more input.
>> 
>> John B.
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Grassi, Paul A. (Fed) <paul.grassi at nist.gov <mailto:paul.grassi at nist.gov>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> iGov, among many goals, will serve as a single interop baseline for cross-border federation. It can do that without VOT. What it can’t do, is carry an interoperable assertion of assurance in it’s payload WITHOUT VOT. So, since iGov is not experimental, and needs VOT, I assert that VOT has graduated from experimental.
>>>  
>>> From: Openid-specs-igov <openid-specs-igov-bounces at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov-bounces at lists.openid.net>> on behalf of "Phil Hunt (IDM) via Openid-specs-igov" <openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>>
>>> Reply-To: "Phil Hunt (IDM)" <phil.hunt at oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>>
>>> Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:07 AM
>>> To: John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>>
>>> Cc: "openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>" <openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-igov] Fwd: Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications
>>>  
>>> The VoT spec is also experimental.
>>>  
>>> Having a normative dependence on an experimental spec creates instability and devalues this spec. Or is the intent that igov be experimental?
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:48 AM, John Bradley via Openid-specs-igov <openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Forwarding a comment on the vote.   
>>>>  
>>>> It is not uncommon for OIDF implimentors drafts to have dependencies on ID.  As it is not uncommon for IETF WG specs to reference other drafts. 
>>>>  
>>>> Strictly speaking vot is a AD sponsors draft so not the same status as a Individual Draft.   Yes the IETF has mysterious ways.  
>>>>  
>>>> To discuss the IETF process and that document the SAG list is best.
>>>>  
>>>> The iGov WG has had extensive conversations with NIST and the UK and included VOT at there request.   NIST is working on a profile of VOT.
>>>>  
>>>> People interested in the iGov discussion with NIST should join the WG.  
>>>>  
>>>> As document Sheppard I have been talking to NIST and others about there ability to profile VOT.   Getting feedback on that is one of the reasons vot has not been progressed to the IESG yet.   That will however happening soon, unless more feedback is received in the IETF process.  
>>>>  
>>>> Honestly the more feedback the better.   Sometimes it takes specs referencing important work like VOT before people become aware of them.  
>>>>  
>>>> I don't think we have a issue with the iGov implimentors draft, but others can differ.
>>>>  
>>>> Regards 
>>>> John B.  
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Prateek Mishra" <Prateek.Mishra at oracle.com <mailto:Prateek.Mishra at oracle.com>>
>>>> Date: Sep 11, 2017 00:44
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications
>>>> To: "John Bradley" <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>>, "Phil Hunt (IDM)" <phil.hunt at oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>>
>>>> Cc: 
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Prateek Mishra <Prateek.Mishra at oracle.com <mailto:Prateek.Mishra at oracle.com>>
>>>>>> Subject: Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications
>>>>>> Date: September 10, 2017 at 10:42:35 PM PDT
>>>>>> To: openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The document has a normative reference to a Vectors of Trust “standard”.  The so called normative reference is an individual draft and has no standing at this time.   
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-05 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-05> has been somewhat updated to reflect NIST 800-63-3’s new components, but does not align.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> We have voted “OBJECT” on this draft and would like to see this worked through first.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> — prateek
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-igov mailing list
>> Openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-igov at lists.openid.net>
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-igov <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-igov>
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-igov/attachments/20170911/4aca26fe/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4383 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-igov/attachments/20170911/4aca26fe/attachment-0001.p7s>