[OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
David Recordon
drecordon at sixapart.com
Mon Apr 28 23:58:31 UTC 2008
Yes, what Mike said is important. A large part of getting the PAPE WG
together is to see what works and what doesn't.
On Apr 25, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> And I'll commit to chronicling the issues and confusions that arise
> during the PAPE spec process as input to this doc.
>
> As you know, I'm starting the PAPE working group for two reasons (1)
> to finish a spec that I believe is important, and also (2) to debug
> the OpenID specification process. J
>
> Cheers,
> -- Mike
>
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Bill Washburn
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:19 PM
> To: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process
>
> +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
> thehttp://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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20080428/91ea1c89/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the board
mailing list