[Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Oct 17 21:20:29 UTC 2013

Nat, please permit me to respond to a few of your points below.

About being feature frozen:  Yes, we'd agreed to not break existing implementations after the Implementer's Drafts without compelling reasons to do so, but no we've never agreed that we're feature frozen.  As evidence to that effect, we've added functionality in response to all of these issues: #867, #875, #878, and clarified the normative text for several more.  So a process argument that we've decided not to add any functionality doesn't hold water.

About what the working group can do on Monday:  At every in-person working group meeting, we've made decisions that normatively affect the specs and made other working group decisions, such as about timelines, etc.  So a process argument that we can't make any decisions on Monday also doesn't match the working group's history.  Yes, we've always posted notes from the meetings to let people who didn't attend also weigh in, and we'll of course do that this time.  But if the working group members assembled can't make decisions, there's not much point in meeting.  Finally, in practice, I'll note that we always have far more input on decisions made at the working group meetings, if you count the number of participants, than decisions made on the calls, or on the mailing list.

As for having time to review, I plan to get proposed text changes out today.  Unless people shock me by suddenly posting all of their proposed changes resulting from their spec reviews in the next few hours, there will be more time to review the proposed changes I'm writing up than others that people will propose.

As for timelines, if we follow this timeline, we'll still be able to have approved specs by the end of the year:

                Thu, Oct 24:        WG consensus to publish proposed final specs and notice to the OIDF Secretary
                Fri, Oct 25:           Final review period starts and first voting notice made
                Tue, Dec 10:       Second voting notice and opening of early voting
                Tue, Dec 24:       Review period ends and vote to approve final specifications officially starts
                Tue, Dec 31         Final specifications approved

So, at least in my mind, process arguments won't help decide this one way or another.  The working group has the freedom to do what it considers to be the right thing, and the time to do it, and still finish the specs by the end of the year (which I think is the goal you're striving for, Nat).

                                                                -- Mike

P.S.  As for Google's postMessage binding, they're not using the fragment encoding.  They're passing the values back via PostMessage.  And they're indicating the use of the alternative transport by using "response_type=postMessage" and passing the postMessage endpoint via an "origin" parameter.  (I asked Breno about it this morning.)   Breno isn't proposing that we standardize exactly that or that we standardize a postMessage binding now.

From: Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:04 AM
To: Nat Sakimura; Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

If you can't deploy this stuff it's no good, it would then be a board issue to approve or disapprove and I know where I would vote

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:55 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

I completely disagree. We have feature frozen months ago and we should not allow any feature bloat now. We have decided it and we must adhere to it.
It is a process and trust issue. Also, the timing is critical for several things that you probably have already heard.

If it could not be done with an extension, I would be more sympathetic. However, in this case, you can do it as an extension, and that is still conformant once that extension gets voted. The core does not prohibit it.

And do not mix up Google's postMessage and Form encoding + POSTing.
The fragment encoding was supposed to be used with postMessage and that's what Google is doing.

Even if you had the new feature text on Monday, there is not enough review period.
Also, note that the Monday meeting has no authority to decide on such things. It has to be done in the list, and we have to give ample time to respond.

We MUST NOT push any new feature through so quickly.

Sorry to be a process police here, but that's what I have to do as a chair.

2013/10/18 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
I actually think that getting the features right, such that developers will actually use what's in the spec, rather than do something non-conformant, is more important than a few days of schedule.

It's pretty telling that Google, Ping, and Microsoft all are using something other than fragment encoding in some cases for Implicit/Hybrid flows.  Far better to enable interop on these non-fragment return types than have everyone do something outside the spec.

As we said on the call, I'll write up a concrete proposal so people can review it in advance of Monday.

Yes, we're late in the process, but far better to make a late addition than to ship something that we know has defects that will cause people to do things not in the spec.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com<mailto:sakimura at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:19 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

Please add to the note that Nat has pointed out that this is not the time to add a new feature that it can and should be dealt with extension.

Also, John has pointed out that expanding the feature will cause interoperability problems.

As part of the AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider explanation, it was pointed out that the UI would show flash and button, and that was the reason we have dropped it from the current Connect spec.
In fact, not only AOL but many others did it in OpenID 2.0 as that was the only option, and it was also something that many of us wanted to escape from.

The reason sited in support of form POSTing were as follows:

1) It is done by SAML and WS.
2) Fragment would not be able to hold large payload.
3) If it is not there, implementers will do stupid things like including access token in the query parameter.
4) If the browser is not Javascript enabled, it is the last resort.

In the above, 1) does not make sense. The web technology has advanced so much since they were designed. We have considered the option previously and dropped.
As to 2) is concerned, the statement is false. Fragment can hold pretty big payload. It was tested during the self-issued testing, and we found out that the limit is actually pretty large. We were sending photos as a claim in id_token as a result of it. (Note: I need to double check - since we were concerned mostly on mobile platform, we may not have tested IE.)
The reason 3) is not a good one either. We should just write an implementers NOTE that they should never do this.
As a result, only the credible reason is 4). However, this means that a lot of other things at the destination site will break, too.

I understand that there are people who want to do it.
Even some of NRI's internal developers wants to do it.
However, that is not a good enough reason to get it into the core at this point in time.
In addition, there will be bunch of moving parts that we have to fix if we were to do it.
We should not do it in three days. We should take more time to consider various implications.
We are finalizing the core spec now. The cut off date is end of this week.

It should be done as an extension. I oppose to do it in the core.
Our priority to get the Core out of the door, now.

2013/10/17 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

Mike Jones
Brian Campbell
George Fletcher
John Bradley
Nat Sakimura
Edmund Jay

               Open Issues
               Multiple response type requests returning values in ways other than fragments
               Document Restructuring and Review

Open Issues:
               #873: session 4.1. Can we use opbs with http (not httponly)
                              We developed proposed text for this
               #879 & #880: Hosting self-issued.me<http://self-issued.me>
                              John will get the cheapest Amazon VM and give Edmund access to it

Multiple response type requests returning values in ways other than fragments
               Microsoft has asked for a POST binding, like WS-Federation and SAML have
               Ping has an extra response_type component x_post
                              This causes the responses to POST to be returned as form-encoded body content
               Google has a way of registering clients to use a postMessage binding
                              They do that by registering a JavaScript origin, rather than response_type
               AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider often uses the POST response because of large AX responses
               John had proposed a registration parameter for this:
                              redirect_type   fragment | POST | postMessage
               This would be discoverable as
               Another reason for this is to not hit fragment size limits
               Mike will file a bug on this to make a concrete proposal
               We will discuss this at the Monday meeting

Document Restructuring and Review:
               Mike posted a Word version of the Core spec with tracked changes turned on
                              People are requested to mark it up with specific proposed changes this week

Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131017/ab160fec/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list