[OpenID board] Connect WG

Santosh Rajan santrajan at gmail.com
Sat Jun 5 05:52:27 UTC 2010


Why has all this started up all over again? If I understood the whole
situation correctly.

1) OpenID Connect proposal was out of OIDF. They are free to take it
wherever they want outside OIDF.
2) Also Dick Hardt was supposed to be leading OpenID V.Next (or whatever you
want to call it).
3) Nat Sakimura's artifact binding proposal seemed to be a good starting
point for V.Next.

So what gives? Can somebody explain the situation please?


On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:

> I never agreed to withdraw the proposal. I understood that there was
> momentum for it to happen elsewhere but as you know strongly disagreed with
> that approach.
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Allen
>>
>> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of the
>> meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the OIDF,
>> which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David agreeing
>> on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes counter to
>> what we had concluded at the meeting.
>>
>> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to be in
>> the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no point
>> in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF.
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>>
>> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Dick,
>>>
>>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have
>>> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for
>>> OAuth2 within the OIDF.
>>>
>>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that all
>>> other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if we
>>> could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID
>>> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future
>>> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well.
>>>
>>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely implemented
>>> and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely irrelevant.
>>> Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this imitative.
>>>
>>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not sufficent
>>> consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's no point
>>> forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way.
>>>
>>> Hope that clarifies things
>>> Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  David, Chris, Joseph, Allen
>>>>
>>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work
>>>> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect
>>>> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would
>>>> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside,
>>>> we did not discuss.
>>>>
>>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a change
>>>> since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the original
>>>> charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as drafted.
>>>>
>>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by seeing
>>>> postings on public mailing lists.
>>>>
>>>> WTF?
>>>>
>>>> -- Dick
>>>>
>>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100605/28dc4d76/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the board mailing list