<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 2010-05-30, at 1:19 PM, Chris Messina wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap; "><ul><li>Abandon the v.Next branding for this work. I'd offer something like "OpenID Labs" or "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal; ">OpenID</span><span style="-webkit-user-modify: read-only; "><span style="white-space: normal; "></span></span> Core", because using an indeterminate <span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal; ">ordinate</span><span style="-webkit-user-modify: read-only; "><span style="white-space: normal; "></span></span> for this work spooks potential implementors who will wait for v.Next before getting started with their own implementations — especially when the core concepts of OpenID 2.0 are suited for many applications today.</li></ul></span></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>v.Next branding was selected after much discussion. Is there anyone else besides you that does not like the v.Next name?</div><div>The idea of calling it v.Next was to clearly message it is a future, unspecified version so that people looking to implement OpenID 2.0 would not think they should wait if it meets their needs. Of course, if it does not meet their needs, they will hopefully get involved in v.Next</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap; "><ul>
<li>Start up an OpenID v2.1 WG to explore modest and incremental improvements to OpenID 2.0. Among the improvements (that may best pursued as individual point releases): removing <span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal; ">XRI, reusing</span><span style="-webkit-user-modify: read-only; "><span style="white-space: normal; "></span></span> OAuth signatures, simplifying discovery, adding support for email-style identifiers using WebFinger, etc.</li></ul></span></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>A 2.1 spec that standardizes current best practices is a great idea. Wanna lead it?</div><div><br></div><div>IMHOI: Removing XRI seems like a 2.1 like scope. OAuth signatures, email-style identifiers seem much more significant.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap; "><ul>
<li>Re-double the efforts around the existing extensions, and promote the use of the WG process (following examples like Artifact Binding and Contract Exchange). Promote using the existing extension model to explore discreet new features and functionality for OpenID, rather than trying to cram a bunch of new extensions into one larger (and thus more controversial and harder to sell) WG.</li></ul></span></span></blockquote></div><div>There is consensus amongst the technologists that we need to break backward compatibility to provide the features in v.Next -- features that are desired by many constituents. An incremental approach is not going to work.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Dick</div></body></html>