[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