[Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Proposed schedule for Implementer's Draft vote - version numbers

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Mon Mar 6 19:40:51 UTC 2017

One more set of questions about the specs, aimed at consistency both with the other OpenID Connect specs and internal consistency within the MODRNA specs.  First, despite James’s comments about the spec version number, it’s common practice for the specs posted at openid.net/specs/ to include a version number as a stable identifier for a particular spec version.  Thus, I plan to include the version numbers for the point-in-time specs, as well as posting them without version numbers.  The one without a version number will change over time as new versions are posted.

Second, all the MODRNA specs except for account porting include “1.0” in the spec title, which is common practice for OpenID specs (even those pre-dating OpenID Connect!).  Unless the working group objects, for consistency reasons, I plan to add “1.0” to the account porting spec title and pathname.

In summary, these are the pathnames I plan to use for the specifications unless I hear objections:
              openid-connect-modrna-authentication-1_0-06.html (stable version)
              openid-connect-modrna-authentication-1_0.html (current version)
              openid-connect-account-porting-1_0-07.html (stable version)
              openid-connect-account-porting-1_0.html (current version)
              openid-connect-user-questioning-api-1_0-10.html (stable version)
              openid-connect-user-questioning-api-1_0.html (current version)
              openid-connect-modrna-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-1_0-03.html (stable version)
              openid-connect-modrna-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-1_0.html (current version)

I will proceed on this basis after an ack from the chair and/or spec authors and start the 45-day Implementer’s Draft review period.

                                                       -- Mike (writing as OpenID Foundation secretary)

From: Manger, James [mailto:James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
Cc: openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net
Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Proposed schedule for Implementer's Draft vote - version numbers

draft-account-porting → openid-connect-account-porting is ok. I guess we should make this change in the repo as well.

But adding -06 to the file name is a poor idea.
“-06” is really only an approximate internal-to-working-group hint about when it is worth reviewing a draft again. We deliberately removed -0x from file names in the Bitbucket repo. It prevented having links that pointed to the latest draft (which is what you almost always want). It caused mismatches with repo commits (which already provides a separate versioning scheme).

All the current Final Specs and Implementer’s Drafts and some of the Drafts at http://openid.net/developers/specs/ have “-1_0” in their file name. Some have “1.0” in their title, but not all. Fewer have “1.0” in the label that links to the spec. This is a spec version, not a draft number. The Drafts are a mixed bag: some mention a 1.0 version, a couple mention draft numbers.

My personal preference is to omit a “1.0” version number. If there is ever an alternative approach that can introduce “v2” in its title.

For the account porting spec, I would suggest:
  Label (on web pages listing specs): “OpenID Connect Account Porting”
  Title (in spec): “OpenID Connect Account Porting — draft 06”
  File: openid-connect-account-porting.html
Plus a link to the Bitbucket repo if you want the full history, diffs etc.

I wonder if repo tags would be helpful in marking revisions that we want to remember (eg proposed & approved implementer’s draft, final spec, and spec with errata)?

James Manger

From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, 4 March 2017 6:43 AM
To: Manger, James <James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com<mailto:James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com>>
Cc: openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>
Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Proposed schedule for Implementer's Draft vote

Got ‘em – thanks.  The one thing I will do to avoid future naming conflicts is rename all the pathname occurrences of “draft-account-porting” to “draft-account-porting-06” before posting.  I realize that this means that I’ll have to edit the path to the .png file in the document.

                                                                -- Mike

From: Manger, James [mailto:James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 3:44 AM
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
Cc: openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>
Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Proposed schedule for Implementer's Draft vote

Hi Mike,

The Implementer’s Draft version of OpenID Connect Account Porting.

In repo:

The draft has a *.png image in an appendix. I’m not sure how (or if) this works with the process.

James Manger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-mobile-profile/attachments/20170306/1f76e7e7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-mobile-profile mailing list