[OpenID board] Connect WG

Mon Jun 7 03:50:40 UTC 2010

Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and
"DISRESPECTFULL".

"BRIAN KISSEL"?

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:

>  Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your
> disrespectful personal attacks.  We encourage healthy debate on this list,
> but with respect and focusing on issues, not people.  When you say things
> like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect
> expected by other participants on this list.
>
>
>
> ·         Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE".
>
> ·         Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What
> Good Have you done for Google?
>
> ·         Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were
> going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So
> don';t talk about this any more!
>
> ·         Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense
> anymore?"
>
> You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and
> temporarily banned from participating.  You may intend no disrespect, but
> the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is
> unacceptable.  Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group
> and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Brian
>
> *___________*
>
> * *
>
> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>
> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>
> bkissel at janrain.com
>
> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>
> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>
>
>
> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>
>
>
> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM
>
> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>
>
>
> Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in
> perspective once again.
>
>
>
> 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog,
> about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of
> OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of
> since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I
> realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that
> moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof
> tops about XRD?
>
>
>
> 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the
> "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD,
>
>
>
> 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours.
>
>
>
> 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums.
>
>
>
> All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of
> hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs.
>
>
>
> Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow
> me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in
> public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have
> conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide
> by your conditions.
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>
> Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you
> have been notified many times in the past.  Please desist or be prepared to
> lose the privilege of participating in the dialog.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Brian
>
> *___________*
>
> * *
>
> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>
> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>
> bkissel at janrain.com
>
> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>
> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>
>
>
> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>
>
>
> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM
> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>
>
>
> Questions/answers inline
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions.
>
>
>
> 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you
> earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would
> be more appropriate. Do you agree?
>
>
>
> No, I don't agree.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently
> employed by Google?
>
>
>
> I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google.
>
>
>
> Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good Have
> you done for Google?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the
> community for a two year term.
>
>
>
> Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to
> join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk
> about this any more!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its interests.
> If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would advocate for
> Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community have the
> ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking at the
> behest of one or the other.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense anymore?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned,
> sometimes not — I hope others can as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It
> is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for
> OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do
> NOT have discovery.
>
>
>
> Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly
> different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our
> customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that
> gets done.
>
>
>
> For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not been
> sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the use
> cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It is
> not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply isn't
> the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the consumer
> space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and Twitter,
> and NOT the many other OpenID providers.
>
>
>
> Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation to
> help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has
> already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing
> identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal).
>
>
>
> Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity
> system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with
> auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed
> identity technology. Am I getting that right?
>
>
>
> I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused on
> what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on the
> set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions
> *tomorrow*.
>
>
>
> My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the
> market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's
> comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters
> are looking for better solutions tomorrow.
>
>
>
> So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction that
> it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named v.Next
> proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases addressed), the
> world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven irrelevant. I don't see
> it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others have said, there will be an
> identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than later, and if that  work doesn't
> happen within the OIDF, we're going to be pitching a product that no one has
> really said that they want, or are currently signing up to implement, based
> on the lack of clarity in the description of v.Next today, whereas there are
> already working prototypes of the Connect proposal in the wild.
>
>
>
> There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine
> solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x
> and beyond.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> -- Dick
>
>
> On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote:
>
> > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see
> enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is
> too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want.
> The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are
> planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those
> problems.
> >
> > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized
> identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad
> companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring
> cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities
> of the marketplace.
> >
> > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology built.
> A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I don't
> know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and David's
> proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is to
> implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong
> way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working
> group before it's even started.
> >
> > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question to
> the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or drift
> into irrelevance.
> >
> > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Allen
> >>
> >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of
> the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the
> OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David
> agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes
> counter to what we had concluded at the meeting.
> >>
> >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to be
> in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no
> point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF.
> >>
> >> -- Dick
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Dick,
> >>>
> >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have
> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for
> OAuth2 within the OIDF.
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that all
> other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if we
> could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID
> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future
> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well.
> >>>
> >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely implemented
> and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely irrelevant.
> Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this imitative.
> >>>
> >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not
> sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's
> no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that clarifies things
> >>> Allen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen
> >>>>
> >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work
> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect
> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would
> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside,
> we did not discuss.
> >>>>
> >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a change
> since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the original
> charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as drafted.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by
> seeing postings on public mailing lists.
> >>>>
> >>>> WTF?
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Dick
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> board mailing list
> >> board at lists.openid.net
> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > board mailing list
> > board at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Open Web Advocate, Google
>
> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>
> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>
>   --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Open Web Advocate, Google
>
> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>
> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>

-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100607/a7c45e51/attachment-0001.html>