[Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Dec 9 23:13:43 UTC 2020


Tom, having one working group document in a particular space is not a reason to not have another one – particularly if they describe distinct or complementary approaches.  If there was a problem with that, we wouldn’t have specs for Session Management, Front-Channel Logout, Back-Channel Logout, and RP-Initiated Logout.  Rather, this can be a strength.

Note also that Kristina incorporated feedback from the working group such as adding the IPR section, renumbering the sections, etc. that they requested on a call to prepare for its adoption.  Kristina asking for adoption by the working group isn’t a surprise.  She did so after incorporating the working group feedback on her initial draft intended to prepare it for adoption.

                                                          -- Mike

From: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:33 PM
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Mike: you misstate the case. This document is still just an internal Microsoft document. What you do with that is not the purview of this committee. My point is that there already is a draft SIOP document that was an accepted OpenID submission and you are putting forth a different document to be voted for acceptance. I object to that.
Peace ..tom


On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:19 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
To Tony’s comment, I believe there’s agreement that all the functions in the draft are within scope, per previous discussions by the working group.  Yes, it’s possible that we could expand the scope and add more things.  We’ve been discussing our goals since Spring, so I don’t think there are any surprises here.  I applaud Kristina for writing down something concrete that we and developers can iterate on.  I think it’s a positive development.

To Tom’s second comment, it’s been years since I’ve been the subject of a Microsoft conspiracy theory.  It almost makes me nostalgic. ;-)  As for “grabbing the editing function”, there’s a much simpler (and true) explanation for why I requested to be an editor:  I’m the primary editor for the Connect specs, and given that this is an extension to them, I requested to be added as an editor so that I could help keep the specification consistent with the other Connect specs – both editorially and semantically.  Tom, you were on the call during which I requested to be added (and during which we added Tobias), and if you had concerns with my participation, you could have voiced them then.

As for recovery and refresh, I believe that those are still under discussion by the working group, and that discussion should continue.  Having an existing draft in no way precludes adding that functionality, should the working group agree on if and how it wants to accomplish those goals.

                                                       Best wishes,
                                                       -- Mike

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> On Behalf Of Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:26 AM
To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

I object to the lack of any consideration of recovery and refresh.  I should also note that this seems to be an attempt by Microsoft to grab the editing function. I frankly don't trust them as editors.

Peace ..tom


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:42 PM nadalin--- via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>> wrote:
I don’t think a call from adoption should happen before the scope is agreed upon as this is the basics for any standards body to prevent creep and understand exactly what the bounds of the specification are. From the call this week the scope is still in question.

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> On Behalf Of Kristina Yasuda via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:23 PM
To: 'Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group' <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com<mailto:Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com>>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Dear AB/Connect WG experts,

We would like to do a call for adoption for a Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01 as has been discussed in the Connect WG call. Here is a link to the draft text: https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/openid-connect-self-issued-v2-1_0.md
This draft covers scopes 1, 2 and 5 from 5 proposed SIOP scopes that are being discussedf, with an ongoing effort to reflect proposals regarding Discovery.

Best Regards,
Kristina


_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20201209/ebfa4751/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list