Features for Future Versions

Gabe Wachob gabe.wachob at amsoft.net
Mon Apr 2 18:39:02 UTC 2007


<p style="tone:caution">
Before we get into the discussions on this list (and hopefully elsewhere),
it would be great if you (and anyone else contributing) could make a clear
IPR statement about your intent with this new functionality. If you wanted
to use Microsoft's Open Specification Promise as a template, that would be
great. We don't have formal policy about IPR moving forward (and how such a
policy would be enforced...), but the more intentions are made clear earlier
on, he better it is for everyone involved. 
</p>

<p style="tone:apology">
David Recordon and I have been pulled in 14 different directions - one of
the things we are tasked with is cleaning up the IPR around OpenID. Such a
task would have been made simpler if everyone had stated up front that their
contributions were not subject to IPR claims (or that if they were, they
would be licensed for use with OpenID, etc). Of course, without a more
formal process and IPR policy in place, such commitments to IPR openness are
not very likely to be given forth ad hoc. So this isn't a criticism, its
just a result of the way things have happened. 
</p>
	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Drummond Reed
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:26 AM
> To: 'Dick Hardt'; 'McGovern, James F ((HTSC, IT))'
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: RE: Features for Future Versions
> 
> James,
> 
> I agree with Dick's feedback. I don't believe OpenID, as an overall
> Internet
> identity framework, is subject to either limitation you asked about. But
> we
> must work our way up into each of those areas of functionality.
> 
> The more you can tell us about specific functions and use cases you'd like
> to see supported, the better we can appraise what it will take to get
> there.
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Dick Hardt
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: McGovern, James F ((HTSC, IT))
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: Features for Future Versions
> 
> 
> On 2-Apr-07, at 8:09 AM, McGovern, James F ((HTSC, IT)) wrote:
> 
> > I originally joined this list with the hopes of injecting support
> > for relationships, authorization and attestation into the
> > specification but have been somewhat disappointed. I do have the
> > following questions?
> >
> > 1. Will OpenID avoid incorporating features where identity
> > selectors such as Cardspace don't support the functionality?
> >
> > 2. Will OpenID always constrain itself to areas where traditional
> > PKI vendors have played (authentication) and avoid areas where PKI
> > can't tread (authorization)?
> 
> Hi James
> 
> Authentication and authorization are somewhat overloaded words and
> different people mean different things by them. I recall you sending
> out a link to a set of requirements you had helped create. The
> dynamics of this mailing list tend to support concise use case
> discussion rather delve into large documents. A concise use case of
> what you mean by Authorization may prove useful to guide the
> discussion and work.
> 
> -- Dick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs




More information about the specs mailing list