[Openid-specs-risc] RISC Profile

Hardt, Dick dick at amazon.com
Wed Sep 13 21:25:47 UTC 2017

I just saw this email. You can ignore my other email. ☺

Also, I’d also like to see the OIDF template.

On 9/13/17, 2:15 PM, someone claiming to be "Openid-specs-risc on behalf of openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>" <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Phil Hunt (IDM) <phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>> wrote:
Oidf has its own publication process and template. Let me know if you need a copy. It uses the older xml2rfc converter.

Yes, please send me the template, or point me to it. Does this mean that we should drop markdown and use only xml? I am fine with xml, just trying to understand the constraints of the tool chain.

What does older version of xml2rfc mean?

The life cycles are the same so i would just keep everything in one risc doc unless there is a good information or technical reason to separate (other then doc mgmt).

As Annabelle mentions, by having two separate specs allows us to have a stable profile spec and a changing event type spec. I think that makes sense.

The IETF would not be a good place for the spec because most cases (at least the explicit cases) stem from OIDC use cases.


The only reason it might be worth discussing at IETF is the implicit cases. That could be done as a new charter in Secevents.  But i think openid is fine unless this is something you feel all email providers need to consider supporting RISC.

IMO the only thing we could consider discussing at IETF is the use case document, but not the profile or the event types.


On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com<mailto:mscurtescu at google.com>> wrote:
I think the RISC profile should be published as an OpenID standard, and not under IETF.

I was planning to create a separate document for the event types. The reasoning was that event types will change more frequent and a separate document makes more sense. Let me know who would like to be an author and I will create the skeleton again in a couple of days.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com<mailto:richanna at amazon.com>> wrote:
Thanks, Marius!

Two questions:
1.       Is the intention to publish RISC as RFCs through IETF? Or is it just a convenient organizing structure for now?
2.       Will the RISC event types be defined in this document, or in a separate document? I recall us talking about this in one of our F2Fs but I cannot remember the outcome. I do recall arguing that events defined in the future should be defined in separate documents.

Annabelle Richard Backman
Identity Services

From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com<mailto:mscurtescu at google.com>>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:18 PM
To: "openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>" <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>>, "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna at amazon.com<mailto:richanna at amazon.com>>, "secevemt at ve7jtb.com<mailto:secevemt at ve7jtb.com>" <secevemt at ve7jtb.com<mailto:secevemt at ve7jtb.com>>
Subject: RISC Profile

The initial skeleton at:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20170913/8cf2406c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-risc mailing list