Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 2/27/14, 8:32 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> (as co-chair)
> 
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Philipp Hancke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> In part, this confusion seems to be caused by the attempt to do
>> both C2S and S2S. DNA is needed for both, but the document mostly
>> describes S2S, which is the more complicated case.
>> 
>> I think starting with a C2S scenario would be better. It's alot
>> easier because only a single party does DNA. Explaining
>> delegation and multi-tenancy is easier, too.
> 
> That is probably because we are chartered for S2S, but not
> explicitly for C2S. That doesn't prevent a solution that solves
> both, but we need to solve S2S in order to claim victory.
> 
> If we agree that C2S is a better problem to solve, then we would
> need to recharter for it. That's not a problem to do if we have
> reason.
> 

I don't think the suggestion is to abandon (for now) the S2S case, but
to show the C2S case first because there's a lot fewer moving parts.


- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email protected] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTD2XkAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO11QsIAJlLfOkQJwK1DsAmgOCmsRCp
AjUGEaLiCv/5ffHW9VeqOLn0/LmPGzctFHjezeTVPQhCSVipBvvcxZcG72VtWsF/
o9Z6lQwDcgVxNBouRczFphxAVLAtOR3UQ60U0jLmSPbs2OiiIKUDzawCGYHxos4j
0G+V2DEywFBEVInT9NomcbmBRnjh54jjCQ6E5NXcc3TrOL7a7rECToiMOpBWTy5o
0YlphD9jJwcMoe3Ph6efI19BN0BMjh0MqgJvbnMES3VqhS3ujKKJp2QpAR/Heypx
S2EGFXmRPfSjParRUzquJc1T/BuqUIxy6/fUh3Jn6xL7R8yC8wPb2dM58OeQWmI=
=F5UX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----