[OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process

Bill Washburn billhwashburn at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 26 06:19:10 UTC 2008


+1

Thanks Drummond for asking about this.  Obviously it will be valuable to get this done and I recall the Board expressed the determination to make this happen in the first part of 2008.  I will certainly be the coordinator,  editor,  facilitator and such.

cheers,
-bill



----- Original Message ----
From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>
To: board at openid.net
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:18:51 PM
Subject: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process

 
On our http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page, it says:
 
            “We are committed to provide “common language” summaries of
our legal documents soon and anyone who has an interest in helping make this
happen, please send email to Bill Washburn (bill at oidf.org).
 
In working through the setup of the PAPE
working group, we got a clear picture of how badly this is needed. While it’s
possibly for an insider like Mike to decode the magic ring to figure out how a
working group needs to set up and operate, to an average OpenID developer that
wants to propose/pursue a new spec, it would be a huge uphill climb (let alone someone
on the outside looking in just wanting to understand the OpenID IPR process).
 
After Ben Laurie of Google, one of the proposers
of the proposed PAPE working group, pointed this out to Mike and the rest of
the proposers, it seemed it would be a good use of resources – and our
stewardship of IPR for the OpenID community –  to hire a writer to organize our
IPR docs and create a simple, plain-English description of the process that
anyone interested in working group could follow. One thought might be for
he/she to do this on the OpenID.net wiki so that we can continue to add notes
about best practices and pitfalls to avoid.
 
What do folks think of this? If there is a
sentiment to do it, the next step might be for Bill to coordinate a
requirements list (it should only be a half-page of bullet points – I’d be
happy to help with it), and then get some quotes from qualified writers as Dick
did for the marketing work (only this is a much smaller job).
 
Thoughts?
 
=Drummond 
 
 
 

________________________________
 
From:billhwashburn at gmail.com [mailto:billhwashburn at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bill Washburn
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:59
AM
To: Drummond Reed
Subject: Re: FW: Ben's observation
about documentation of the WG process
n Thu,
Apr 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>
wrote:
Bill,

One more thought -- Mike and I both thought it be worth hiring a writer (unless
you want to tackle it) to write up a short, plain-English summary of the OpenID
IPR process (and a FAQ) and put it on (or link it prominently to) the http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page so that we all have someplace to point folks to when they ask how it
works.

After all, shepherding OpenID IPR is one of our main jobs.

Will you add this to the task list? I'm happy to make a motion that the board
authorize a small amount to pay a writer to do this.

Thanks,

=Drummond

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:50 PM
To: Drummond Reed
Subject: RE: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process

It's at http://openid.net/ipr/ in the process document there.  I don't know why there's not a link to it
and the ipr policy doc from the http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page.  Can you send Bill a note cc'ing the board asking that that be
fixed?

                     
         Thanks,
                     
         -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:47 PM
To: Mike Jones
Subject: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process

Mike,

Just a note that I think Ben's right -- as best I can tell (from what I looked
over), there's no documentation of the OpenID workgroup process.

Is this the kind of thing we should ask Bill to do? Or at least to contract
out? (This is the kind of thing I know Charles could do for ICF, but Bill has a
different skillset...)

One good writer for the OIDF website would go a loooong ways...

=Drummond

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:25 PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: David Recordon; Mike Jones; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu; Jonathan Daugherty
Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE working group

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Drummond Reed
<drummond.reed at cordance.net>
wrote:
> Yes, Ben, it's documented in the OpenID Foundation IPR docs at http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/.
It could be better organized, but the OIDF is working on that.

AFAICS that page does not document the WG process.

>
>  =Drummond
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl at google.com]
>  > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:04 AM
>  > To: David Recordon
>  > Cc: Mike Jones; Drummond Reed; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu;
Jonathan
>  > Daugherty
>  > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE
working group
>  >
>  > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > > You're a part of the Foundation, but Google will have to
choose to join
>  > the
>  > > working group.
>  >
>  > Err ... ok ... Google chooses to join the working group.
>  >
>  > BTW, is any of this documented anywhere?
>  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  On Apr 24, 2008, at 5:00 AM, "Ben Laurie"
<benl at google.com>
wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Mike Jones
>  > <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
>  > > wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Good point about making it clear what we're
asking people to do.
>  > I've
>  > > > > already asked them to join OIDF and to consider
joining the working
>  > > group
>  > > > > once it's up and running.
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > Am I already joined by virtue of being at google?
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > > What I forgot to do was tell them when and how
>  > > > > the vote will occur.  I propose to do so by
adding this sentence to
>  > the
>  > > end
>  > > > > of the message:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > "After the Specifications Council has
responded to this request to
>  > > create a
>  > > > > working group (which must happen within 15 days)
a separate message
>  > will
>  > > be
>  > > > > sent asking those of you who are OpenID members
to vote on the
>  > working
>  > > group
>  > > > > creation, containing instructions for how to do
so."
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Sound good?
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                     
          -- Mike
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > ________________________________
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > From: David Recordon [mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com]
>  > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:41 PM
>  > > > > To: Mike Jones
>  > > > > Cc: Ben Laurie; Drummond Reed; John Bradley;
Johnny Bufu; Jonathan
>  > > > > Daugherty
>  > > > > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the
OpenID PAPE working
>  > group
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Looks fine to me.  The one thing I see
missing is what we're asking
>  > > people
>  > > > > to do.  Should we just have people reply
with a +1 and we can deal
>  > with
>  > > the
>  > > > > actual counting of the votes re:membership
orthogonally?  I think
>  > that
>  > > might
>  > > > > be the easiest.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Thanks,
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > --David
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Hi folks,
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > To those of you on the to: line -- thanks for
agreeing to serve on
>  > the
>  > > PAPE
>  > > > > working group with me to finish making the PAPE
draft an OpenID
>  > > > > specification.  Below is the note I propose
to send to
>  > specs at openid.net
>  > > to
>  > > > > initiate the creation of the working group.
 Please suggest any
>  > edits
>  > > you'd
>  > > > > like or send an ack that you're OK with it
as-is.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Johnny and Jonathan, as authors of the existing
PAPE spec, I'd also
>  > like
>  > > to
>  > > > > invite you to join and contribute to the working
group.  If you
>  > would
>  > > like
>  > > > > to be listed as proposers of the working group
please let me know
>  > and
>  > > I'll
>  > > > > gladly also add you.  And if any of you
would crave the opportunity
>  > to
>  > > be an
>  > > > > editor of the specification I can add you to
that list too.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                     
                     
    Thanks
>  > > all,
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                     
                     
    --
>  > Mike
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > To:  specs at openid.net
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Subject:  Proposal to create the PAPE
working group
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR
policies and procedures
>  > > this
>  > > > > note proposes the formation of a new working
group chartered to
>  > produce
>  > > an
>  > > > > OpenID specification.  As per Section 4.1
of the Policies, the
>  > specifics
>  > > of
>  > > > > the proposed working group are:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Proposal:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > (a)  Charter.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(i)  WG name:  Provider Authentication Policy
>  > Extension
>  > > > > (PAPE)
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(ii)  Purpose:  Produce a standard OpenID extension to
>  > the
>  > > > > OpenID Authentication protocol that:
 provides a mechanism by which
>  > a
>  > > > > Relying Party can request that particular
authentication policies be
>  > > applied
>  > > > > by the OpenID Provider when authenticating an
End User and provides
>  > a
>  > > > > mechanism by which an OpenID Provider may inform
a Relying Party
>  > which
>  > > > > authentication policies were used. Thus a
Relying Party can request
>  > that
>  > > the
>  > > > > End User authenticate, for example, using a
phishing-resistant
>  > and/or
>  > > > > multi-factor authentication method.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(iii)  Scope:  Produce a revision of the PAPE 1.0
>  > Draft 2
>  > > > > specification that clarifies its intent, while
maintaining
>  > compatibility
>  > > for
>  > > > > existing Draft 2 implementations.  Adding
any support for
>  > communicating
>  > > > > requests for or the use of specific
authentication methods (as
>  > opposed
>  > > to
>  > > > > authentication policies) is explicitly out of
scope.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(iv)  Proposed List of Specifications:  Provider
>  > > > > Authentication Policy Extension 1.0, spec
completion expected during
>  > May
>  > > > > 2008.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(v)  Anticipated audience or users of the work:
>  > > > > Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying
Parties – especially
>  > those
>  > > > > interested in mitigating the phishing
vulnerabilities of logging
>  > into
>  > > OpenID
>  > > > > providers with passwords.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(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 possibly a
>  > > > > face-to-face meeting at the Internet Identity
Workshop.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(viii)  Basis for determining when the work of the WG
>  > is
>  > > > > completed:  Proposed changes to draft 2
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:
>  > > > > (1) Assurance Levels as defined by the National
Institute of
>  > Standards
>  > > and
>  > > > > Technology (NIST) in Special Publication 800-63
(Burr, W., Dodson,
>  > D.,
>  > > and
>  > > > > W. Polk, Ed., "Electronic Authentication
Guideline," April 2006.)
>  > > > > [NIST_SP800‑63].  This working group is
needed to enable
>  > authentication
>  > > > > policy statements to be exchanged by OpenID
endpoints.  No
>  > coordination
>  > > is
>  > > > > needed with NIST, as the PAPE specification uses
elements of the
>  > NIST
>  > > > > specification in the intended fashion.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(ii)  Proposers:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                Michael B. Jones, mbj at microsoft.com,
>  > > > > Microsoft Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                David Recordon,
>  > drecordon at sixapart.com,
>  > > Six
>  > > > > Apart Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                Ben Laurie, benl at google.com, Google
>  > > > > Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                Drummond Reed,
>  > drummond.reed at cordance.net,
>  > > > > Cordance Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                John Bradley, john.bradley at wingaa.com,
>  > > > > Wingaa Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Editors:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                Michael B. Jones, mbj at microsoft.com,
>  > > > > Microsoft Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
                David Recordon,
>  > drecordon at sixapart.com,
>  > > Six
>  > > > > Apart Corporation
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >              
(iii)  Anticipated Contributions:  None.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > ====
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > (The rest of this note is informational and not
part of the proposal
>  > to
>  > > > > create an OpenID working group.)
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Given that the OpenID specification procedures
call for votes of the
>  > > > > membership, this would be a good time for those
wanting to influence
>  > the
>  > > > > outcome of this specification to join the OpenID
Foundation.  You
>  > can do
>  > > so
>  > > > > at http://openid.net/foundation/join/.  Should you wish
to join the
>  > > working
>  > > > > group, you will also need to execute one of the
Contribution
>  > Agreements
>  > > at
>  > > > > http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ once the working
>  > > group
>  > > > > formation has been approved by the membership.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20080425/c0ee7da3/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the board mailing list