[OpenID] Press Release

Thu Feb 7 18:16:17 UTC 2008

I can read that.

I don't see there being a war declared either by the Foundation or by  
the the news.com article.

Clearly we want to create a protocol is open for anyone to use. I  
think you want that.

As I mentioned in my previous email, the protocol allows communities  
such as yours to develop your own data types to be transported by an  
open protocol.

-- Dick

On 7-Feb-08, at 9:47 AM, Peter Williams wrote:

> I'm a lone voice in realty *for* Openid adoption - because I saw  
> reality in its design claims to be fundamentally de-centralized in  
> its _operational_ web-management model, unlike the Liberty websso  
> protocols. This property is required, if a web-scale technology is  
> to get adopted in the mostly de-centralized organized US realty  
> culture.
>
> The dominant news-reported statement so far is.. OpenID Foundation  
> declares war on proprietary extensions to openid, and that's what  
> the new board members joined to accomplish.  http://www.news.com/ 
> 8301-13577_3-9866802-36.html?tag=nefd.top
>
> That war is likely to undermine the very argument about openid  
> philosophy that I'd been using to get adoption traction - that  
> organized, backroom realty could keep its necessary private- 
> namespace handling while staying "in keeping" with openid  
> community's de-centralized management values (if not actually  
> "extolling" its values.)
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick at sxip.com]
> Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 8:59 AM
> To: Peter Williams
> Cc: Bill Washburn; OpenID List
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Press Release
>
>
>
> I don't intend to be rude Peter, but I'm not going to read this
> email. If you want to take the time to write a concise response, I
> will take the time to read it.
>
> -- Dick
>
> On 7-Feb-08, at 8:56 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
>
>> That's fine, if life turns out that way. But lets see: I've seen
>> many a standards committee try to rig  a particular view of
>> operational culture through compliance rules, and domineering
>> spinware. The foundation looks overly tech-heavy. It may need some
>> independents - folks who can turn the conscience of corporate
>> culture but not become obstructionist to a tech-lead initiative
>> (and I've seen lots of obstructionist independents, too!)
>>
>> US Realty has ~1000 namespaces, whose fields address largely the
>> same housing features, in each market. All attempts in the (NAR)
>> trade association - a group with about a million members and large
>> sums to lobby Congress with - to get buyin to "standard names" has
>> largely failed - mostly because local communities see great
>> (cultural) value in their local choice of name or additional
>> selling feature (of your property) that has great relevance in one
>> area - when marketing "island" properties - but has no relevance in
>> others  - when marketing a condo in a downtown building complex.
>> Unlike Google (which markets names globally), realtors typically
>> market only in a 5mile radius area. The pricing and marketing
>> dynamics in that area may be quite different to the area with the
>> same house plans that is just "up the hill"... Thus local names
>> have a propensity to stick around and are often, in fact, a way of
>> distinguishing a particular real estate investment culture and its
>> the realty sub-markets that a commercial property investor, say,
>> creates.
>>
>> Are these namespaces proprietary? Well in as sense they are (not
>> that they have any direct value). They are the work product and
>> practices design of the 500 Realtors who make up city X, in State
>> Y. Usually, the namespace has sub-name spaces - the terms of art
>> used by the 10 realtors who are specializing in the _future_
>> commercial property in that new shopping zone the city government
>> is thinking about issuing a bond for, where the old steel mill used
>> to be.... The field will probably be called BondX= with sub-values
>> that are an enumation (zone A, zone B ,zone C) which mean
>> absolutely nothing of course to the rest of the world outside that
>> 5 mile area and that city's financing budgets, but which imply
>> property valuation and investment potential - that obviously
>> affects current and futures pricing.
>>
>> Now, we have all those names, and their mappings onto standard
>> names. We have the names the magazine publishers use (e.g. Google
>> listing snippets posted off up into GoogleBase, amongst 10,000
>> others places) And, at this point its trivial to map some of the
>> fields into yet more "standard names" defined in openid AX. But,
>> when the realtor wants the local name for the same thing, I have to
>> be able to deliver it. Otherwise your 50+ year old grandmother who
>> has sold houses for 20 years will be very upset with me. At least
>> 500,000 grandmothers make up NAR and they often apply a collective
>> lobbying voice that makes Congressmen tremble. Woebetide the IT
>> person that decides to change a screen layout... or the name or
>> order of presentation of bath# vs bathroom-permits#!
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick at sxip.com]
>> Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 8:13 AM
>> To: Peter Williams
>> Cc: Bill Washburn; OpenID List
>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Press Release
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> I would imagine the intent of the phrase is to keep the core of
>> OpenID from becoming proprietary.
>>
>> I would encourage you to define new properties in your own namespace
>> for your sub-community. If there is a reason why they need to be
>> proprietary -- ie you want to control who can use them, I don't see
>> that as evil. I would expect that many of the new properties would be
>> of interest to all members in the sub-community.
>>
>> The OpenID Foundation does not determine the protocol. The protocol
>> is determined by the community. Extensions and enhancements are
>> determined by the community. Anyone of course can write their own
>> extensions, and they can be proprietary. They just won't be able to
>> be called part of OpenID if they are not approved according to the
>> OpenID Intellectual Property Process.
>>
>>         http://openid.net/ipr/OpenID_Process_Document_
>> (Final_Clean_20071221).pdf
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>> On 7-Feb-08, at 7:52 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
>>
>>> What does this mean?
>>>
>>> "OpenID was always intended to be a decentralized sign-on system,
>>> so it's fantastic to join a foundation committed to keeping it free
>>> and unencumbered by proprietary extensions."
>>>
>>> If I want for my sub-community to define my own namespace in the AX
>>> protocol (as the technology allows), am I an evil "proprietary
>>> extension maker"?
>>>
>>> If I want to define my own tags for use the the extensible XRD, am
>>> I an evil...
>>>
>>> Can only the OpenID Foundation use all those extension points in
>>> the protocol?
>>>
>>> Unlike SSL (which allows for privately defined extensions), and
>>> unlike X.509 (which allows for privately defined extensions), in
>>> OpenID culture will there be can be allowance for privately defined
>>> extensions?
>>>
>>> I think we need an explicit mechanism for denoting which extensions
>>> are privately-defined (and which therefore have community blessing
>>> for their creation and use in the defined sub-community).
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: general-bounces at openid.net on behalf of Bill Washburn
>>> Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 7:26 AM
>>> To: OpenID List
>>> Subject: [OpenID] Press Release
>>>
>>>
>>> FYI...
>>>
>>> http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=818650
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SOURCE: OpenID Foundation
>>>
>>>  <http://openid.net/foundation>
>>> Feb 07, 2008 09:00 ET
>>>
>>> Technology Leaders Join OpenID Foundation to Promote Open Identity
>>> Management on the Web
>>>
>>>
>>> OpenID Foundation to Support Internet User Single Sign-On Technology
>>>
>>>
>>> CORVALLIS, OR--(Marketwire - February 7, 2008) - The OpenID
>>> Foundation <http://openid.net/foundation>  today announced that
>>> Google (NASDAQ: GOOG <http://www.marketwire.com/mw/stock.jsp?
>>> Ticker=GOOG> ), IBM (NYSE: IBM <http://www.ibm.com/investor/> ),
>>> Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT <http://www.marketwire.com/mw/stock.jsp?
>>> Ticker=MSFT> ), VeriSign (NASDAQ: VRSN <http://www.marketwire.com/
>>> mw/stock.jsp?Ticker=VRSN> ) and Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO <http://
>>> www.marketwire.com/mw/stock.jsp?Ticker=YHOO> ) have joined as its
>>> first corporate board members.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>