[OIDFSC] OpenID v.Next Discovery Working Group Proposal

[John Bradley]

Agreed,

Once the charter is approved lets get this party started.

John B.
On 2010-05-21, at 7:58 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:

> Agreed.
> 
> While it's clear that other WGs might have to coordinate with the
> discovery WG, I think there's value in having a separate discovery WG
> for the reasons you mention.
> 
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 19:28, Allen Tom <atom at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Regarding all the various WG proposals – at least with the Discovery WG, I
>> think there’s universal consensus that the existing OpenID 2.0 discovery
>> mechanism is very deficient and  must be revised or even completely
>> replaced. Yadis is obsolete and overly complex, and there’s been a lot of
>> innovation in Discovery after OpenID 2.0 was finalized.
>> 
>> The authors of the OpenID User Interface extension found several cases where
>> OpenID discovery needed to be updated, yet extending the existing 2.0
>> discovery did not quite work. (RP/OP Logos/Metadata, publishing which UI
>> modes and display languages were supported, support for browser assistants,
>> etc)
>> 
>> The Discovery WG charter is well defined and  focused – the output of the WG
>> is expected to be usable for future iterations of OpenID. Given that the
>> community wants to quickly advance OpenID, my hope is that the future
>> discovery work can be developed in parallel and kept in sync with the other
>> initiatives.
>> 
>> Allen
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/21/10 6:05 PM, "Allen Tom" <atom at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Per the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures, this note formally
>> proposes the formation of a new OpenID working group.  The charter and
>> background information for the proposed group are as follows.
>> 
>> (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 and normalization of OpenID identifiers,
>> including those utilizing e-mail address syntax and those that are URLs,
>> 
>> ·     enable discovery of features supported by OpenID v.Next OpenID
>> Providers and Relying Parties,
>> 
>> ·     enable discovery of attributes about OpenID v.Next OPs and RPs,
>> including, but not limited to visual logos and human-readable site names,
>> 
>> ·     enable discovery supporting a spectrum of clients, including 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 discovery of public keys,
>> 
>> ·     enable potential mechanisms for discovering context-relevant 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 2.0.  XRDS, XRD, host-meta, Web Linking, XAuth, LRDD, 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
>> Dick Hardt, dick.hardt at gmail.com, independent
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100521/a7aa308d/attachment.bin>