Proposal to create the TX working group

Nat Sakimura sakimura at
Thu Nov 13 07:02:30 UTC 2008


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.



*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:


(a)  *Charter*.

 (i)  *WG name*:  Contract Exchange WG (formally Trust Exchange Extension

 (ii)  *Purpose*:  The purpose of this WG is to produce a series of standard
OpenID extension to the OpenID Authentication protocol that
enablesarbitrary 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

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
      - 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

 (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
   - LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework [IGF] 1.0
   - *XML Advanced Electronic Signatures [XAdES]*
   - WS-Trust 1.3 [WS-trust]
   - XRI 2.0 [XRI]
   - XDI 1.0 [XDI]
   - Vendor Relationship Management [VRM]

 (ii)  Proposers:

   Drummond Reed, drummond.reed at, Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)
   Henrik Biering, hb at, Netamia (Denmark)
   Hideki Nara, hdknr at, Tact Communications (Japan)
   John Bradeley, jbradley at, OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)
   Mike Graves, mgraves at, JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
   Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at, Nomura Research Institute,
   Robert Ott, at, Clavid (Switzerland)
   Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at, NRI America, Ltd. (U.S.A.)
   Toru Yamaguchi, trymch at, Cybozu Lab (Japan)


   Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at, Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.

 (iii)  Anticipated Contributions:
    * Sakimura, N., et. al "OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention
Specification (draft)", Oct. 2008.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:39 AM, David Recordon <drecordon at>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 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, 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
>> +372.515.6495

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the specs mailing list