2nd Draft of the OpenID v.Next Discovery Working Group Charter
Nat
sakimura at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 23:21:46 UTC 2010
Then, I would like to throw xri as an identifier type as well in
addition to email style ones as it is really simple to do. Just add http://xri.net/
when the identifier starts with =, @, ! or ( . It is just a one
liner and is worthwhile to do to support what we support today.
=nat @ Tokyo via iPhone
On 2010/04/20, at 7:45, John Bradley <john.bradley at wingaa.com> wrote:
> I think identifier normalization rules need to be in scope.
>
> Otherwise it will lead to interop issues.
>
> John B.
> On 2010-04-19, at 6:15 PM, Nat wrote:
>
>> Thanks Tom.
>>
>> I think it is included in the attributes, but public key info may
>> qualify as a special item just like logo.
>>
>> BTW, is normalization of identifiers included in the discovery or
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> =nat @ Tokyo via iPhone
>>
>> On 2010/04/20, at 7:00, Allen Tom <atom at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Mike Jones and I have revised the proposed charter for the OpenID
>>> v.Next Discovery Working Group. The main change is that the
>>> infamous NASCAR problem is within scope. There are many potential
>>> ways that we can try to solve (or optimize) the NASCAR, including
>>> client/browser support, as well as server-side approaches. The
>>> text “enable potential mechanisms for discovering context-releva
>>> nt OpenID providers” means that addressing the NASCAR issue is w
>>> ithin the scope of the Working Group.
>>>
>>> The other change was to correct a typo in the 3rd bullet point:
>>> enable discovery of attributes about OpenID v.Next OPs and RPs,
>>> including, but not limited to visual logos and human-readable site
>>> names. The previous version of the draft omitted the “not”
>>>
>>> Here’s the current draft of the charter:
>>>
>>> (a) Charter.
>>> (i) WG name: OpenID v.Next Discovery.
>>> (ii) Purpose: Produce a discovery specification
>>> or family of discovery specifications for OpenID v.Next that
>>> address the limitations and drawbacks present in the OpenID 2.0
>>> discovery facilities that limit OpenID’s applicability, adoption
>>> , usability, privacy, and security. Specific goals are:
>>> · enable discovery for OpenID identifiers, including those
>>> utilizing e-mail address syntax and those that are URLs,
>>>
>>> · enable discovery of features supported by OpenID v.Next O
>>> penID Providers and Relying Parties,
>>>
>>> · enable discovery of attributes about OpenID v.Next OPs an
>>> d RPs, including, but not limited to visual logos and human-read
>>> able site names,
>>>
>>> · enable discovery supporting a spectrum of clients, includ
>>> ing passive clients per current usage, thin active clients, and
>>> active clients with OP functionality,
>>>
>>> · enable discovery supporting authentication to and use of
>>> attributes by non-browser applications,
>>>
>>> · enable potential mechanisms for discovering context-relev
>>> ant OpenID providers,
>>>
>>> · seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID
>>> v.Next specifications.
>>>
>>> Compatibility with OpenID 2.0 is an explicit non-
>>> goal for this work.
>>> (iii) Scope: Produce a next generation OpenID
>>> discovery specification or specifications, consistent with the
>>> purpose statement.
>>> (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: OpenID
>>> v.Next Discovery and possibly related specifications.
>>> (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work:
>>> Implementers of OpenID Providers, Relying Parties, Active Clients,
>>> and non-browser applications utilizing OpenID.
>>> (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
>>> face-to-face meetings at the Internet Identity Workshop and OpenID
>>> summits.
>>> (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the
>>> WG is completed: Work will not be deemed to be complete until
>>> there is a consensus that the resulting protocol specification or
>>> family of specifications fulfills the working group goals.
>>> Additional proposed changes beyond that initial consensus 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 draft has been
>>> achieved, consistent with the purpose and scope.
>>> (b) Background Information.
>>> (i) Related work being done in other WGs or
>>> organizations: OpenID Authentication 2.0 and related
>>> specifications, including Yadis 1.0. OAuth and OAuth WRAP. XRDS,
>>> XRD, and WebFinger.
>>> (ii) Proposers:
>>> Allen Tom, atom at yahoo-inc.com, Yahoo! (co-chair)
>>> Michael B. Jones, mbj at microsoft.com, Microsoft (co-chair)
>>> John Bradley, ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com, independent
>>> Additional proposers to be added here
>>> (iii) Anticipated Contributions: None.
>>>
>>> <OpenID v.Next Discovery Working Group Charter.doc>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100420/509735b7/attachment.htm>
More information about the specs
mailing list