Draft OpenID v.Next Discovery working group charter

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Apr 16 01:43:54 UTC 2010

On 4/15/10 12:56 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Phillip,
>> It may be that we want to support Webfinger. But I disagree with the
>> example given.
> What example did I give? :-)  I just cast my vote for Webfinger over SRV.
>> In general as far as the charter goes, I think that it needs to have a
>> statement to the effect that the WG will liaise with the IETF and W3C
>> groups to arrive at a consistent architecture.
> In my experience, liaising with the IETF is somewhat useless.  It's an
> organization that does not work that way.  

Agreed on liaison statements at the IETF. In my experience those are
typically invoked when the relationship with another standards body is a
bit strained or the other organization prefers to work in a more formal

> It would be better to have folks
> working on OpenID engage in the IETF, because that's how stuff gets done.

Paul, what kind of engagement do you have in mind?


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100415/772c6aec/attachment.bin>

More information about the specs mailing list