The -05 version of this draft resolves all of the issues and comments raised in the Gen-ART review of the -04 version. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 4:57 PM > To: leifj@xxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Black, David; Sean Turner; tim.polk@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-johansson-loa-registry-04 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-johansson-loa-registry-04 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: April 1, 2012 > IETF LC End Date: April 3, 2012 > IESG Telechat date: April 12, 2012 > > This draft establishes an IETF registry of SAML Level of Assurance (LoA) > profiles; > it's short and clear, although it does not contain any initial content for the > registry - presumably that will be supplied after the registry is created via > the > expert review registration mechanism established by this draft. > > Summary: > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. > > Major issues: (1) > My major open issue concerns the last paragraph in the Introduction: > > Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML > Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs to > represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on their > SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by protocols other than > SAML or OpenID Connect is encouraged. > > While this is good in principle, and one presumes that each registration of > sets of profiles from an existing protocol will be self-consistent, this > text also encourages other (e.g., new) protocols to draw upon this registry > without providing any guidance. I'm concerned that it's probably possible > to make a serious mess in a new protocol by using an LoA or two from multiple > sets of registered LoAs without paying attention to whether the resulting > collection of LoAs is consistent or coherent (or even sensible) for use in > a single protocol. This concern is reinforced by the guidance to expert > reviewers in Section 4.1, which effectively conveys a desire to get all > of the reasonable LoA profiles registered here, regardless of source or > consistency with other registered LoA profiles. > > I'd like to see some guidance to protocol designers and others for how to > appropriately select multiple LoA profiles from this registry in a fashion > that results in a consistent and (hopefully) usable collection. For example, > it may be a good idea to use (or start with) a set of related profiles already > in use by an existing protocol in preference to mixing/matching individual > profiles from multiple existing protocols. At some level, this is common > sense advice that the presence of profiles in this registry does not obviate > the need to apply good design judgment, but that does deserve to be stated. > > Minor issues: (2) > > (1) This draft is intended to be an informational RFC, but it uses > RFC 2119 keywords. That's only a good idea in exceptional circumstances. I > suggest removing section 1.1 and replacing upper case MUST/SHOULD/MAY with > their lower case versions or reworded explanations of rationale. Most of > the uses of RFC 2119 keywords are not protocol requirements, but requirements > on IANA, registrants, and users of the registry for which RFC 2119 keywords > are not appropriate, e.g., see RFC 2119 section 6: > > Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care > and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is > actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has > potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) > > (2) Section 4 > > OLD > The initial pool of expert and the > review criteria are outlined below. > NEW > The review criteria are outlined below. > > The initial pool of experts is not designated by this draft. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 3 > > OLD > The following ABNF productions represent reserved values and names > NEW > The reserved element defined by the following ABNF productions represents > a set of reserved values and names > > Section 4 > > The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert Review" > policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts > > Nope, the actual RFC5226 name of that well-known IANA policy is Expert > Review (or Designated Expert), see section 4.1 of RFC5226. If that > well-known IANA policy isn't what was intended, this is a serious > open issue. > > Top of p.7 > The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be taken to imply > ^ > r ---------------------------------------/ > > Section 7 > > OLD > An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or > NEW > A protocol implementor MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or > > The minor issue about RFC 2119 keywords also applies to this text. > > idnits 2.12.13 did not find any nits that need attention. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ----------------------------------------------------