[ggf-ogsa-sec-wg] RE: [ogsa-wg] Security Services section

[dane@fnal.gov]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Nataraj Nagaratnam wrote:

Since the discussion is now getting beyond process and into details of
what to do and the participant list is growing, it's now time to
take this to the list. I've copied ogsa-sec-wg on this response. If
any WG members feel they're missing context, please ask. If the other
cc's on this reply would like to follow this discussion, I'd ask that
they join the list. I'll delete them from further replies to avoid
spamming. The thread will be available in the archive for review.

> I think we are all in agreement about how to move forward ideally: "
> updating these quickly, getting as sense of the community support, and
> moving on seems a fine plan:"

Yes, the question is: Is the ideal plan is viable ? There needs to be
someone to step forward to work on updating the drafts. We keep coming
back to that rub.

> I do not agree with your statement: " I do not think it appropriate to
> "hijack" Frank and Takuya's work into a document where there is not
> currently strong activity from the authors nor has there been broad
> community involvement merely because those drafts predate the recent
> work."
>
> The concepts in the submitted documents are not obselete/predated. Also in
> the recent work that Frank and Takuya has put in, there are pieces
> extracted out of the original documents too.. if you hadn't noticed. Frank
> is a co-author of that document too. And I have provided my input to
> Frank's posting and I am a co-author of the other documents too.
> Therefore, it is NOT "hijacking" but mere "factoring" in IMO.  There are
> good additions to the documents from Frank and Takuya. I am disappointed
> that when we solicited input from WG, that the security experts end up
> providing input to OGSA WG and do not feel the spirit to provide them in
> the OGSA SEC WG. Yes, I am being blunt here too... sorry about that.

Perhaps "hijacking" was a poor choice of words on my part. I was
reacting to the comment that seemed to imply that anything other than
a short overview summary should be forced into OGSA-SEC-WG because
that group "owned" the turf, despite the fact that it has been
moribund. A basic issue here seems to me to be whether OGSA-SEC-WG
should still hold the charter in light of the activity level over the
past year and the long expired milestones.

Let me make sure we're speaking about the same things.

By "submitted documents" you mean the roadmap and architecture drafts in
the OGSA-SEC-WG ?

By "Frank's posting" you mean the use case he
mentioned in his May 3 mail
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~franks/draft-ggf-ogsa-security-usecase-01.doc
(BTW Frank, this link is stale. Perhaps you moved it, as warned, and
didn't update the list ?),
or some recent OGSA document draft (I confess that I'm not current on
the OGSA WG's discussions, it's been too active for me to follow) ?

By "the security experts .. providing input " you are referring to
Frank and Takuya's work on usage cases ? Is there other activity you're
referring to ? Is it your claim that this is in competition to the
architecture and roadmap documents ?

What are the issues here ?

1) Is the current security work in the OGSA-WG "poaching" on the
charter of the OGSA-SEC-WG ?

I'm not sure this is your question, but I don't see that as the case.
You've received clear assurances from the OGSA-WG chairs that such is
not their intent. Is this the complaint ? What in particular ?

2) Who "owns" the text in the two OGSA-SEC drafts ?

I believe the working group does since it accepted the submitted
drafts as WG drafts. However, like you, I am concerned that these
documents are stuck in a nether realm. I think either the WG needs to
arise and work the documents or be disbanded (and the documents
returned to their authors for individual submission or reuse or
whatever) I was concerned in March that the former would not happen in
a timely fashion. It's now June and still no evidence that it will.


> "Why are we continuing to wrestle with a silent working group if there are
> only a few individuals willing to work on these documents ?"
>
> If individuals willing to work on OGSA WG can help contribute to the
> architecture documents, help update them and provide an abstract back to
> OGSA WG, then that is an ideal step IMO.  If we don't want to use the WG
> but merely get few of us working on the side, that can be done too.. but I
> don't think that is appropriate in an open community.

The GFSG has an obligation to enforce charters and direct effort to be
done in appropriate groups. Outside of that role, there's no ability
to coerce people into doing particular work, even if they are
particularly well suited to do so. Pursuasion, evangelism, enticement
and cajoling are the tools the chairs have to use to get particular
contributions.

If there are ANY willing to work on the two OGSA-SEC documents, then
they certainly are welcome to step forward and use the WG in my
opinion (and I believe you've consistently said the same). There was a
brief pulse of activity in mid-March, then nothing.  Discussion seems
to focus on specifying the particular services. Other than your
volunteer to edit and my comments/questions, I've seen little interest
in working the current documents in the WG to publication -- perhaps
because people consider them done and are bored of haggling over
"trivia" (in which case a call should be made to put the drafts into
WG last call) or because they don't care to work these to publication
(in which case we should fold the group and release the documents to
the authors).

Alternately, if it is just a small group that is willing, then I think
they can rightfully and appropriately choose to use the individual
submission path instead. There is still open community involvement in
the public comment process and if the individual submission drafts are
interesting/contentious enough, then a WG could be formed for the
interested parties to resolve the issues.

Finally, Marty pointed out the value of circulating seminal discussion
documents as GGF drafts, independent of whether they ever get formally
published. I believe there is a good role for such drafts and it is a
topic being working in the GGF Process WG. These have been such
drafts and valuable as such. Perhaps that's sufficient for now.

Let's choose one path and go forward.

Dane