Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group

[Mike Jones]

This was discussed as the last IIW (see http://self-issued.info/?p=256).  The point of view taken was there are a number of things being introduced that will be incompatible with OpenID 2.0 by definition, such as OpenID identifiers using e-mail syntax.  Likewise, there are things that are believed to be broken, such as having two different specifications for delivering attributes (both optional!).

The consensus was that we'll end up with a cleaner and easier to implement spec if we don't require backwards compatibility.  Just like SAML 2.0 is related to, but not compatible with SAML 1.1, we expect OpenID v.Next to be related to, but not compatible with OpenID 2.0.  And reusing the SAML analogy, it's common for installations to support both SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 for a transition period while their partners migrate to SAML 2.0.  I expect that a similar migration strategy to be employed by OpenID installations, in cases where backwards compatibility is important.

Per the last OpenID summit, there's a reason why RPXNow has custom code for every major OP.  It's a goal for v.Next to make that unnecessary...

                                                                -- Mike

From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:57 PM
To: Mike Jones; jsmarr at stanfordalumni.org; openid-specs at lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-comm at openid.net
Subject: RE: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group

Mike,

Not knowing what discussions took place that led to this decision, I must say this sounds a bit scary.  We're seeing an increase in the adoption of OpenID, but loss of backward-compatibility seems like it would create quite a problem in trying to gain further adoption.  Software all over would have to be upgraded (which would take time and never happen all at once) and users would be left wondering when OpenID might or might not work.

I really wish compatibility with OpenID 2.0 would be a definite goal.

Paul

From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:45 PM
To: Paul E. Jones; jsmarr at stanfordalumni.org; openid-specs at lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-comm at openid.net
Subject: RE: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group

It's a statement about v.Next overall.

                                                            -- Mike

From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at packetizer.com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:42 PM
To: jsmarr at stanfordalumni.org; openid-specs at lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-comm at openid.net
Subject: RE: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group

Joseph,

This sentence troubles me a little:
"Compatibility with OpenID 2.0 is an explicit non-goal for this work"

If users have the right to control what (if any) attributes are exchanged, then it seems to suggest they could refuse to convey any, in which case there ought to be a high-degree of interoperability with OpenID 2.0.

Can you elaborate on what that sentence really means?  Is this a generate statement about v.Next (i.e., the larger team is not interested in preserving backward compatibility), or is this a statement applicable only to this WG?

Paul

From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Smarr
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:09 PM
To: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-comm at openid.net
Subject: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group

Hey guys, I volunteered to drive the "attributes" working group for OpenID v.Next, so here's a proposed charter, feedback welcome. Thanks to Mike Jones for actually writing up the first draft and getting me to act on it! :) js



(a)  Charter.

(i)              WG name:  OpenID v.Next Attributes

(ii)              Purpose:  Produce attribute transmission and schema specifications for OpenID v.Next that address the limitations and drawbacks present in the OpenID 2.0 attribute facilities that limit OpenID's applicability, adoption, usability, and interoperability.  Sharing basic data about the user has become a common enough requirement that OpenID needs to take a more hands-on role in specifying common fields and also more tightly/actively working on how to propose and accept new standard fields going forward.  Specific goals are:

* define how to ask for and get rich, consistent, common and extensible data attributes,

* define schemas for common attributes,

* define a mechanism and process for using attributes not in this common set,

* enable user control over what attributes are released,

* enable aggregation of attributes from multiple verifiable attribute sources,

* enable the use of attributes by non-browser applications

* enable the use of attributes both with and without employing an active client,

* 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 attribute specification or specifications, consistent with the purpose statement.

(iv)              Proposed List of Specifications:  OpenID v.Next Attribute Transmission and Attribute Schema specifications 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 Attribute Exchange (AX) and Simple Registration (SReg).  ICF Schemas working group.  Portable Contacts.

(ii)              Proposers:

Joseph Smarr, jsmarr at google.com<mailto:jsmarr at google.com>, Google (chair)

Additional proposers to be added here

(iii)              Anticipated Contributions:  None.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100511/492d542d/attachment.htm>