[Openid-specs-risc] RISC Profile

Marius Scurtescu mscurtescu at google.com
Thu Sep 14 03:00:34 UTC 2017


OK, then we can add an initial set of event types in the main spec.

Marius

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <
richanna at amazon.com> wrote:

> New events (ie those defined after RISC is finalized) should be defined in
> their new documents that are essentially sub profiles of RISC, where such
> sub profiles MUST be backwards compatible, eg their events can be consumed
> and ignored as unsupported by existing deployments.
>
> --
> Annabelle Richard Backman
> Identity Services
>
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Phil Hunt (IDM) <phil.hunt at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> I would check with Mike and John. Typically you don't rev specs except for
> errata.
>
> If you define new events you typically define new specs.
>
> That said, OIDF may have more flexibility for versioning.
>
> The issue becomes compliance. When someone implements what do they support?
>
> Specifically for risc, to distinguish new events defs from old, use
> versioning or different uris for the events uri. Think about how versioning
> the draft might change or not change the event family uri.
>
> Consider what are new definitions for old events vs what are just new
> events.
>
> Phil
>
> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <
> richanna at amazon.com> wrote:
>
>> Marius,
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you expect the events document will change? Is your concern that
>> new RISC events will be introduced over time, and the document will be
>> updated to include those?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> Updating the original document like that may lead to confusion over what
>> it means for a service to say it “supports RISC”.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Annabelle Richard Backman
>>
>> Identity Services
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Phil Hunt (IDM)" <phil.hunt at oracle.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 7:08 PM
>> *To: *Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com>
>> *Cc: *"Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna at amazon.com>, "
>> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>,
>> "secevemt at ve7jtb.com" <secevemt at ve7jtb.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: RISC Profile
>>
>>
>>
>> Oidf has its own publication process and template. Let me know if you
>> need a copy. It uses the older xml2rfc converter.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Marius Scurtescu <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.
>>
>>
>> Marius
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <
>> 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>
>> *Date: *Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:18 PM
>> *To: *"openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-risc at lists.openi
>> d.net>
>> *Cc: *Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com>, "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <
>> richanna at amazon.com>, "secevemt at ve7jtb.com" <secevemt at ve7jtb.com>
>> *Subject: *RISC Profile
>>
>>
>>
>> The initial skeleton at:
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/risc
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bitbucket.org_openid_risc&d=DwMFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=fGVjqygzih2rKAgh_tG96wuTq4FTaObaVe4DMSRcV7k&s=2dWBwy-kCe-JQKTc53o3n76H7RYTu1YQk0YJ0whUKR8&e=>
>>
>>
>> Marius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20170913/b14de4f6/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-risc mailing list