Proposal to create the TX working group

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 13:42:56 UTC 2008


I have discussed with Dick at iiw to see if it is possible to build on AX.
It seems it is inevitable that there needs to be some
"modifications/extensions" to AX if it is to be done on AX. We at NRI and
Mike of JanRain have been evaluating what is needed since I submit the last
version of the charter and we are coming close to the conclusion on what is
needed. In essence, we need to add another message type apart from fetch and
store to AX, and we need to define the direct communication in both
directions (OP->RP and RP->OP). If it is done, we are quite confident that
we can build the CX on top of AX. In conjunction with it, I have been
working on XRD SimpleSign that it depends on. We are still working out the
details, but that probably should be the topic of the WG to follow up.
I am going to post the amended charter to the Wiki.

Also, I think it is a good practice to formalize the message acceptance note
issuing procedure (well, the workflow in general) so that there will not be
a proposal which is not being dealt with.

Regards,

=nat

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM, David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>wrote:

> Hi Nat,Mike Jones just pointed out that the Steward Council hadn't yet
> caught this email which I apologize for.
>
> I have two concerns with this charter:
> 1) It appears the WG is going to deliver 9 specifications with a list that
> isn't clear about what each specification will do and how they relate.  Past
> approved WG proposals (as well as the current drafts) have had a very clear
> set of deliverables.
> 2) While discussed heavily at IIW, this proposal still does not clearly
> seem build on top of the AX specification.  The current OpenID
> specifications very clearly fit together and build atop each other and this
> one should be no different.
>
> I'm working on figuring out how to have the Stewards
> Council recommendation created on a public mailing list, but felt it
> worthwhile to share my opinions here until that happens.
>
> --David
>
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> I was pointed out by Dick that "Key Exchnage" really should be "Key
> Discovery". I agree. So, I would do s/Key Exchange/Key Discovery/g.
>
> Cheers,
>
> =nat
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Here is the modified version of the charter based on the discussion at
>> IIW. I chose Contract Exchange instead of Contract Negotiation since
>> detailed negotiation is out of scope.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> *Contract Exchange WG Charter (formally TX). *
>>
>> In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures this
>> note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to produce an
>> OpenID specification.  As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the specifics of
>> the proposed working group are:
>>
>>
>> *Proposal*:
>>
>> (a)  *Charter*.
>>
>>  (i)  *WG name*:  Contract Exchange WG (formally Trust Exchange Extension
>> (TX))
>>
>>  (ii)  *Purpose*:  The purpose of this WG is to produce a series of
>> standard OpenID extension to the OpenID Authentication protocol that enable
>> s arbitrary parties to create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed
>> legally binding "contract" that are  both broadband and mobile friendly
>> by defining appropriate bindings for each use case.
>>
>> For this purpose, (1) public key exchange, (2) signed request and response
>> based on the public keys, (3) content encryption based on public key, (4)
>> extensible data transfer method, (5) contract format, (6) notification
>> methods for asynchronous communications are needed to be defined. For this
>> purpose, this WG will explorer the possibility of using/extending OpenID
>> Attribute Exchange [AX] as well as defining new extensions where it may fit.
>>
>>
>>
>>  (iii)  *Scope*:
>>
>> Scope of the work
>>
>>    -    Development of the specifications including:
>>
>>
>>    - Public Key Exchange method
>>       - A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method.
>>       - Legally binding contract format.
>>       - Query/response communication protocols for establishing and
>>       canceling of the contract.
>>       - Message Encryption method to be used for the relevant
>>       communications.
>>       - Notification interface for asynchronous communications.
>>       - Possible extension and profiling of [AX] to accommodate the
>>       above.
>>       - Provisions for long term storage of the contracts.
>>       - Conformance requirements for other data transfer protocol
>>       bindings
>>
>>
>>    - Security, threats and Risk analysis
>>
>>
>>    - Perform Security Risk analysis and profiles for best practice
>>
>>  Out of scope
>>
>>    - Term negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a contract
>>    should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications.
>>    - Assurance programs or other identity governance frameworks.
>>    - It is the intent that this specification be usable by any trust
>>    community, whether it uses conventional PKI hierarchies, peer-to-peer trust
>>    mechanisms, reputation systems, or other forms of trust assurance. The
>>    specification of any particular trust root, trust hierarchy, or trust policy
>>    is explicitly out of scope.
>>
>>
>>  (iv)  *Proposed* List of Specifications:  Sries of specs encompassing
>> the above requirements. The actual spec may happened to be just an expansion
>> of AX or several news specs as it will be determined in the WG. Expected
>> completion of the first iteration is in Q1 2009.
>>
>>  (v)  *Anticipated audience or users of the work*:  Implementers of
>> OpenID Providers and Relying Parties, especially those who require security
>> and accountability features to exchange sensitive customer information (e.g.
>> personally identifiable information and credit card numbers) responsibly
>> among trusted parties.
>>
>>  (vi)  *Language* in which the WG will conduct business:  English.
>>
>>  (vii)  *Method of work*:  E-mail discussions on the working group
>> mailing list, working group conference calls, and possibly face-to-face
>> meetings at conferences.
>>
>>  (viii)  *Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed*:
>> Drafts will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or decrease
>> consensus within the working group.  The work will be completed once it is
>> apparent that maximal consensus on the drafts has been achieved, consistent
>> with the purpose and scope.
>>
>> (b)  *Background Information*.
>>
>>  (i)  Related work being done by other WGs or organizations:
>>
>>    - OpenID Attribute Exchange Extension 1.0 [AX]<http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute-exchange-1_0.html>
>>    - LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework [IGF] 1.0 Draft<http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/content/download/4329/28939/file/liberty-igf-draft-1.0-2008-06-21.zip>
>>    - *XML Advanced Electronic Signatures [XAdES]*
>>    - WS-Trust 1.3 [WS-trust]
>>    <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-trust/200512/ws-trust-1.3-os.doc>
>>    - XRI 2.0 [XRI]
>>    - XDI 1.0 [XDI]
>>    - Vendor Relationship Management [VRM]
>>
>>
>>  (ii)  Proposers:
>>
>>    Drummond Reed, drummond.reed at parity.com, Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)
>>    Henrik Biering, hb at netamia.com, Netamia (Denmark)
>>    Hideki Nara, hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp, Tact Communications (Japan)
>>    John Bradeley, jbradley at mac.com, OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)
>>    Mike Graves, mgraves at janrain.com, JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
>>    Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp, Nomura Research Institute,
>> Ltd.(Japan)
>>    Robert Ott, robert.ott at clavid.com, Clavid (Switzerland)
>>    Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at nri.com, NRI America, Ltd. (U.S.A.)
>>    Toru Yamaguchi, trymch at gmail.com, Cybozu Lab (Japan)
>>
>>
>>    Editors:
>>
>>    Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp, Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
>>
>>  (iii)  Anticipated Contributions:
>>     * Sakimura, N., et. al "OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention
>> Specification (draft)", Oct. 2008. [TX2008]<http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/spec/openid-trust-exchange-1_0.html?root=openidtx>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:39 AM, David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to add that Nat is running a session on TX at IIW this
>>> afternoon.  We should definitly chat about the needs being expressed in this
>>> thread and how they might be able to be solved with OpenID.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Martin Paljak wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 09.11.2008, at 20:51, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As to AX+SAML (or for that matter XAdES) is concerned, that is a valid
>>>>> approach, but if I were to use SAML, I would use
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify a technical detail: The XAdES example regarding Estonia
>>>> you mentioned earlier does not include transporting XAdES payloads over
>>>> OpenID AX (which seems to be the purpose of the discussed workgroup where
>>>> the similarities of SAML over AX come in). The special behavior and out of
>>>> band assurances given by openid.ee does not include anything new on the
>>>> protocol level, just added semantics to basic OpenID transactions. If we
>>>> could use PDF signatures as legally valid signatures in Estonia, it could be
>>>> PDF based signatures instead of XAdES, or ODF signatures, or MS .doc
>>>> signatures.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, openid.ee allows a RP to upload a contract (template) which must
>>>> be agreed with and digitally signed (legally binding signature resulting in
>>>> an XAdES document with the filled in contract signed by the user with an
>>>> ID-card and stored on the OP) before the OP starts issuing positive
>>>> assertions about the given user to the given RP. The contract could be a
>>>> document of any kind (PDF, JPG, DOC, TXT) and the only thing that is
>>>> transferred to the RP over AX is a 'secret url' from where the RP can
>>>> download the signed contract (XAdES container with the possibly PDF contract
>>>> in it).
>>>>
>>>> The actual assurance (that the user has signed the contract the RP has
>>>> uploaded) comes from out of band agreements/contracts between OP and RP. The
>>>> AX attribute is just an extra option, if the RP wishes to automatically
>>>> fetch and store the signed contract somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Basically it is an advanced and legally binding 'I agree with terms and
>>>> conditions' checkbox built on top of standard OpenID.
>>>> With legally binding I mean that it is dead simple in the court: "Here
>>>> are the terms and conditions you digitally signed and which you have
>>>> violated" as checking checkboxes and pressing 'continue' is not a legally
>>>> binding action in Estonia, at least I don't know of any court cases about
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> If you need an example use case, think of signing and faxing NDA-s
>>>> before you can download some simple "secret" product documentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Martin Paljak
>>>> http://martin.paljak.pri.ee
>>>> +372.515.6495
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20081204/9f0bedd0/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the specs mailing list