Hi Dean, >>>>> I also don't think we need 10mins for >>> draft-ietf-sip-saml-04. We can >>>>> limit face time to drafts that have open issues to discuss >>> that were >>>>> not resolveable on the list. >> >> I also do not think we need to discuss the document during the >> meeting. >> There are open issues but they are mostly technical in nature and I >> don't expect a lot of feedback on these issues during a face-to-face >> discussion with a 10 min slot. >> >> My impression at previous SIP meetings was that there is not enough >> time for some discussions related to the overall direction of the >> work. >> Many >> of the detailed discussions on drafts, where often only 5 folks know >> the subject well enough or care about it enough to join the >> discussion, are not really well-spent time given the larger >number of >> folks in the meeting room. > > >So here are the questions: > >1) Are we getting anywhere, as a WG, with SAML?
I am not sure I fully understand the question. > >2) Is there some other process we should be using that would >be more effective, such as a) a design team leading to >AD-sponsored individual or experimental draft, b) a dedicated >working group on identity issues such as I have proposed? One of the reasons for us being slow with the document was the dependency on SIP Identity and all the discussions around it during the past year or so. SIP SAML is dependent on SIP identity, at least it was up to the current version of the specification. Initially, I was hoping that these discussions would come to a conclusion rather soon. As it turns out this wasn't the case. I am currently leaning towards avoiding the dependency with SIP Identity (by using an independent header) and to ignore the discussions that happen in SIP identity (SBC issues, E.164 numbers, etc.). >3) Does the work NEED to be done at all in the IETF? Is the question focusing on "should this be done at all" or is the question "is the IETF the right place for it"? > Is there >a constituency of implementation, or are we engaging in a >purely academic exercise? There are implementations. Unfortunately from different versions of the draft -- and the draft has changed over time. Academic exercise: With the current state of deployment almost all SIP security mechanisms are to some degree academic rather than enjoying widespread deployment. When starting the work I obviously had a different picture of the next steps of the SIP deployment in mind. I was hoping for a more end-to-end usage of SIP for things other than voice. The document builds, with regard to the functionality, on SIP Identity. If nobody wants SIP Identity then I doubt that they are extremly interested in the advanced version of SIP Identity. >Perhaps academic publication would >be a more appropriate direction if we lack a constituency. This document is not more or less academic than the rest of the documents in the SIP working group. I could list many things -- but I better try to avoid that. Have already upset the GEOPRIV working group today. If you are, however, asking whether the status of the document is correct (currently PS) and whether it should probably experimental then I am not so sure. Ciao Hannes > >-- >Dean > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
