No subject
Fri Aug 15 23:49:43 UTC 2008
signature.<br>
<br>
> "A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", =
but
isn't it already<br>
> defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group b=
e
developing<br>
> a new signature mechanism?<br>
Let me explain on it.<br>
<br>
CX is not XML based. It is tag-value based. I do not think there is any
generalized public key based signature algorithm that enables one to sign
tag-value based on name spaces. What is defined in OAuth comes close, but i=
t
needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized s=
uch
method, please point it to me. I understand that AuthN 2.1 would be looking=
at
doing it. However, it is not there yet so it cannot be cited. Once it gets
citable, I envision that it will be citing it instead of incorporating it i=
nto
the CX spec.<br>
<br>
For other points, it would be appreciated very much if you could explicitly
state the points. Then, I would be replying to them.<br>
<br>
By the way, from the process point, I believe that the specs council needs =
to
be stating one of the reason stated in "4.2 Review". It needs to =
be
one of<br>
<br>
(a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with =1B$B=
!x=1B(B4.1);<br>
<br>
(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID
community's purpose;<br>
<br>
(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have suffic=
ient
support to succeed<br>
or to deliver proposed deliverables within
projected completion dates; or<br>
<br>
(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause
legal liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
<br>
On what point the current proposal falls into?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
=3Dnat<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$B:9=3DP?M=1B(B</span>: David Recordon [<a
href=3D"mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>]<br>
<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$BAw?.F|;~=1B(B</span>: 2008<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$BG=
/=1B(B</span>12<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$B7n=1B(B</span>24<span
lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$BF|=1B(B</span> 2:54<br>
<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$B08 at h=1B(B</span>: Mike Jones<br>
CC: Sakimura Nat; <a href=3D"mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council=
@openid.net</a><br>
<span lang=3DZH-TW>=1B$B7oL>=1B(B</span>: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to crea=
te the TX working
group<br>
<br>
I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first appr=
oach
Nat to see if the charter can be made to address these concerns and then
resubmitted for review.<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at=
9:20
PM, Mike Jones <<a href=3D"mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.J=
ones at microsoft.com</a><mailto:<a
href=3D"mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.Jones at microsoft.com</a>=
>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or specifi=
c in
many respects. One of my concerns is the same as David's below –=
; when
XMLDSIG and other signature algorithms already exist, it is incumbent upon =
the
proposers to justify the creation of yet another, incompatible signature
algorithm.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is therefore my recommendation that the specifications council communica=
te
something like this position to the membership to guide their vote about th=
is
working group:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this propo=
sal
to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seem=
s to
propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways t=
o do
accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal =
is
not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such a=
s AX
1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to thes=
e
underlying protocols.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a recommenda=
tion
prior to the membership vote. My stab at our recommendation is above.
Wordsmithing welcome. If you disagree, please supply alternate
wording that you think we should use instead.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
 =
;
 =
;
-- Mik=
e<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>From: David Recordon [mailto:<a
href=3D"mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a><mailto:<a
href=3D"mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>>]<o:p></o:p>=
</p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM<br>
To: Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Cc: Mike Jones; <a href=3D"mailto:specs-council at openid=
.net">specs-council at openid.net</a><mailto:<a
href=3D"mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a>><o=
:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] F=
W:
Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at <a
href=3D"http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1"
target=3D"_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange=
_1</a>
(the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).<br>
<br>
While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels
nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and
scope. For example, the scope says that the working group will develo=
p
"A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but i=
sn't
it already defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working g=
roup
be developing a new signature mechanism?<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at=
9:09
PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href=3D"mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri=
.co.jp</a><mailto:<a
href=3D"mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri.co.jp</a>>> wrote=
:<br>
<br>
The most current version is here: <a
href=3D"http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0"
target=3D"_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1=
.0</a><br>
<br>
Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output =
of
this WG.<br>
<br>
=3Dnat<br>
<br>
Mike Jones wrote:<br>
<br>
Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work =
on
this spec=1B$B!D=1B(B<br>
<br>
<br>
[Deleted the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current 40K =
list
size limit]<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:general at openid.net">general at openid.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tp://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
<br clear=3Dall>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=3Dnat)<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><o:p=
></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_C11F8A453DFFBE49A9F0D75873F554462A784D7721NAEXMSGC118re_--
More information about the general
mailing list