The meeting started off with the usual agenda review. Agenda was
accepted as proposed.
The first item was Terminology.
Reading assignment: read RFC 2828
Internet Security Glossary
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2828.txt
Other Glossaries mentioned:
Internet Security Glossary, Version 2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirey-secgloss-v2-04.txt
SAMLv2: Glossary
http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-glossary-2.0-os.pdf
"identity gang" lexicon
http://identitygang.org/Lexicon
The next item was Problems we want to solve (see agenda)
A few things were added:
- whitelisting
- claim minimality
- proof of server identity
Sam Hartman made his presentation, there were a few questions.
There was then discussion on Problems we want to solve.
****** edit here -- right title? same as before
Additional problems
non-browsing HTTP support
support for existing infrastructure
Cross Application Credential (XAC)
Grouping of problems was then started.
Dick Hardt's slide was presented.
Ekr proposed grouping the problem up as:
EKR1: fix http auth
- anti-phishing
- passwords and other
EKR2: cross-site identity, Eliot's dad, SSO
EKR3: Claim & Attribute Transferral
More detailed discussion on each problem then ensued:
EKR1: Fix HTTP Auth
AD questions to audience concluded with:
- Liaise w/ W3C on GUI
- Liaise w/ APWG
- Layer / Arch TBD
- can stand alone, but coordinate w/ EKR2 and EKR3
EKR1 does not require EKR2
EKR2: cross-site identifier
(Eliot's dad problem was broken off to be EKR4)
- raw assertions of identity are easier to trust than attributes
- name subordination
- existing technology, but glue work
Question: Is there glue work to be done by the IETF?
- no one thinks there is no glue work, 15 think there is, 15 are
not sure
12 ok on work if EKR1 not happening,
EKR3:Claim & Attribute Transferral
- existing claims and syntaxes may be used
- binds attribute assertions to underlying communication
- not limited to HTTP
Question: Is there glue work to be done here by the IETF?
12 support, a couple object
EKR4:
- eliot's dad problem
part of EKR1 & EKR 2
Discussion if EKR1 and EKR2 required different BOFs at next IETF
meeting. Clearly different drafts would be required. Best to combine
group working on them.
Meeting concluded 15 minutes late.
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
