Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG

[Breno de Medeiros]

Nat,

My apologies then. I did not understand what you meant and I wrote poor
language in the scope description. Moreover, what you are describing is
probably something that would fit much better in this working group.

Someone wants a stab at clarifying the proposal on this point?

2009/2/3 Nat <sakimura at gmail.com>

> CX does not and cannot carry information from multiple users.
>
> The information model deals exclusively around a single subject.
>
> =nat at TOKYO via iPhone
>
> On 2009/02/04, at 7:50, Dick Hardt <Dick.Hardt at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for the feedback Breno!
>
>
>
> Nat: can you provide some illumination? I see that CX would define
> attribute types to be carried in AX. I'm confused about the scenario where
> information from multiple users would be transmitted as that implies that
> the protocol no longer is dealing with a single subject.
>
>
>
> -Dick
>
>
>
> *From:* Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno at google.com <breno at google.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:39 PM
> *To:* Dick Hardt
> *Cc:* david at sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura; OpenID
> Specs Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt < <Dick.Hardt at microsoft.com>
> Dick.Hardt at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in
> if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing
> people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included
> in this WG or in a different one?)
>
>
> I'm ok either way.
>
>
>
> 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of attributes
> about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very different design pattern
> then what AX does now. I have not seen the background on why this is in
> scope, so perhaps I can have a different view if someone cares to enlighten
> me.
>
>
> When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he included
> scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes, and it was felt
> that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk exchange functionality
> and again because it pertained to attributes, it was believed that it would
> better fit here.
>
> The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different
> approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same
> people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec.
>
> The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested
> primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and
> AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Dick
>
> PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions.
>
>
>
>
> --
> --Breno
>
> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
>
>


-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090203/e95e5c19/attachment-0002.htm>