[OpenID board] Technical Committee Chairs

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu May 20 19:08:42 UTC 2010


;)

Maybe can we start compiling the difference to understand the issues?

=nat

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:00 AM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that it makes sense to only pull it into the Artifact Binding
> Working Group, but do want to collaborate. :)
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks David,
>>
>> and you can contribute "connect" draft to the Artifact Binding WG as well
>> ;-).
>>
>> That will save a lot of time for you as well if you and I can move
>> quickly enough to adjust the differences and clarify the text. Then,
>> by the end of May, "connect" is out of the door for the public review.
>> (True, the discovery portion may be a bit out of scope but if Y! and
>> G. are OK, rest of us are OK, I think.)
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:45 AM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Inline...
>> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Dewitt,
>> >>
>> >> Since I am not a marketing type, I may not have been communicating it
>> >> properly.
>> >> I got a lot of positive criticism around it during IIW X, but the OIDF
>> >> chartered WG,
>> >> "Artifact Binding" Working Group is producing OAuth2.0-- binding of
>> >> OpenID Assertions.
>> >>
>> >> The spec has gone through 6 draft specs, and you can find it here:
>> >>
>> >> https://openid4.us/specs/ab/  ("OpenID for us", not ver. 4 :-)
>> >>
>> >> >From what I see, it is kind of close to what proposed OpenID Connect
>> >> would do.
>> >> It lacks some features like webfinger support (which I expected v.Next
>> >> Discovery
>> >> WG would sort out), cookie generation, etc., but they can also be
>> >> added in, I suppose.
>> >> It is kind of unfortunate that though I like those features of the
>> >> connect proposal,
>> >> I cannot incorporate them because I have read them and these are not
>> >> contributed to OIDF yet.
>> >
>> > I currently plan to contribute the Connect proposal into an OpenID
>> > Foundation Working Group. If that's undesired then I'll remove "OpenID"
>> > from
>> > the name and continue working on it elsewhere.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Artifact Binding does other things that connect proposal does not: it
>> >> supports mobile handsets as well as higher level of assurance.David
>> >> might be thinking that these are
>> >> redundant features, but they are very useful in commerce etc. setting
>> >> and all these public key crypto (actually, any crypto for that matter)
>> >> things are optional.
>> >
>> > I don't think that they are redundant. Mobile is really important and
>> > I'm
>> > glad that you held the session on Artifact Binding at IIW so that I
>> > could
>> > learn more about the limitations within that sort of environment!
>> > It's not said enough, but Nat you've really been the only one making
>> > technical progress within the Foundation the past six months and that
>> > progress is a good thing.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I am planning to freeze the draft latest by the end of May.
>> >>
>> >> For expediting the process of getting "connect" like features out,
>> >> it might be better to utilize this WG as a conduit instead,
>> >> and still we can message the market that we are producing a
>> >> single version of the OpenID 3.
>> >>
>> >> Just my 2c.
>> >>
>> >> =nat
>> >>
>> >> P.S. I plan to contribute openid4.us to OIDF. I just needed it to get
>> >> SSL cert to demonstrate Artifact Binding at IIW. What would be the
>> >> process?
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:45 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dewitt at google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > From where I'm sitting, I see them as mutually compatible and
>> >> > parallel
>> >> > goals, but not now the same technology, and that's okay.
>> >> > Connect being "build on what the web is already doing and very much
>> >> > wants/needs today", and v.Next being "what could be done given the
>> >> > luxury of
>> >> > time to explore."
>> >> > The OIDF could make an effort to wait for the latter to build the
>> >> > former,
>> >> > but honestly, the former isn't going to wait for the OIDF.  Which is
>> >> > why
>> >> > I
>> >> > advocate a parallel approach if we hope to see the OIDF involved (and
>> >> > I
>> >> > do).
>> >> >
>> >> > Please correct my understanding of the situation if I got the above
>> >> > wrong,
>> >> > as I'm only following the discussions from the edges and I'm
>> >> > (blissfully)
>> >> > out of the loop.
>> >> > -DeWitt
>> >> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +1 to Nat's suggestion.  While we know that both David and Joseph
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> very
>> >> >> well qualified to lead this committee, if we do have differing
>> >> >> perspectives on the future direction of the next iterations of
>> >> >> OpenID,
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> would be good to have representatives from both perspectives
>> >> >> involved
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> leading the process.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brian
>> >> >> ___________
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brian Kissel
>> >> >> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>> >> >> bkissel at janrain.com
>> >> >> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>> >> >> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
>> >> >>  Learn
>> >> >> more at www.rpxnow.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> [mailto:openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat
>> >> >> Sakimura
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:09 AM
>> >> >> To: openid-board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Technical Committee Chairs
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have a little concern here.  It might be a healthy thing to have
>> >> >> discussions, but in the end, I really want v.Next and Connect camp
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> unite. In that respect, both chair and co-chair coming from Connect
>> >> >> camp bothers me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You say that Joseph was close to be a co-chair, but the situation
>> >> >> surrounding it has changed since then. At the time, there was only
>> >> >> v.Next. Now, it looks like there are v.Next and Connect camp.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do not you think it is better to first ask v.Next camp people to
>> >> >> step
>> >> >> up?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Would not somebody form v.Next camp step up?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> =nat
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Recordon
>> >> >> <recordond at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > The committee elects its own chairs. A few months ago we elected
>> >> >> > Dick
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > chair and me as co-chair. Joseph was really close to being
>> >> >> > co-chair.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Nat Sakimura
>> >> >> > <sakimura at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So, what is the process that chooses committee chairs?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:01 PM, David Recordon
>> >> >> >> <recordond at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Today the Board passed a resolution directing the Executive
>> >> >> >> > Director,
>> >> >> >> > Chair,
>> >> >> >> > Technical Committee, and outside council to explore a
>> >> >> >> > contracting
>> >> >> >> > relationship with Dick Hardt to move the v.Next work forward.
>> >> >> >> > Dick
>> >> >> >> > brought
>> >> >> >> > up how there could be a conflict during this process given that
>> >> >> >> > he
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > chair of the Technical Committee. So for the time being I'll
>> >> >> >> > take
>> >> >> >> > on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> > chair role with Joseph Smarr (who wasn't at the meeting but I
>> >> >> >> > spoke
>> >> >> to a
>> >> >> >> > few
>> >> >> >> > hours ago) taking on the co-chair role.
>> >> >> >> > Technical Committee, expect a followup email around starting to
>> >> >> >> > pull
>> >> >> >> > together a set of deliverables and timeline over the next week.
>> >> >> >> > The
>> >> >> >> > goal, as
>> >> >> >> > I understand it, is to either have a contract in place or a
>> >> >> >> > determination
>> >> >> >> > that it is unfeasible by the end of the this month.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >> > --David
>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> > board mailing list
>> >> >> >> > board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> >> >> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>> >> >> >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> board mailing list
>> >> >> >> board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > board mailing list
>> >> >> > board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> >> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>> >> >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> board mailing list
>> >> >> board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> board mailing list
>> >> >> board at lists.openid.net
>> >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > board mailing list
>> >> > board at lists.openid.net
>> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>> >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> board mailing list
>> >> board at lists.openid.net
>> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > board mailing list
>> > board at lists.openid.net
>> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en


More information about the board mailing list