[OpenID] CX proposal status

[Nat Sakimura]

Well, to be clear, I am not proposing to rubber stamp on JAL implementation.


That's fairly different than what we would come up.

For example, JAL implementation actually uses XML contract format with XML
Sig.
I actually prefer that, but I was guessing that this community would want
something not XML nor XML Sig. Of course, if the community wants XML+XMLSig,
I am more than happy.

It is just the use case from JAL implementation that I am bringing in.

=nat

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Peter Williams <pwilliams at rapattoni.com>wrote:

>  I'm guessing culturally, that there are a number of things that need to
> get dropped.
>
>
>
> The notion of "use-case driven" WG needs to go. I doubt we want to
> introduce a distinction between those outputs that are engineered using
> use-case methods vs those that are not. Use of one or other method is
> incidental, and neither supports or limits the technical work. The WG
> members should pick one or more once engaged. There is nothing in a
> "charter" that has to decide this issue upfront. (otherwise, it smacks of
> religion, that introduces politics,  that induces worry.. that causes
> delay…).
>
>
>
> The notion of that the particular topic (higher assurance protocols for
> trust network) demands certain (Security) engineering techniques (e.g.
> crypto and signatures) should also go. The WG might want to decide to adopt
> an existing apparatus, tune commodity infrastructure (e.g. PKI), posit 2
> levels of OPs (just like in IS-IS or OSPF enterprise backbones),…
>
>
>
> One should be clear that no additional "profiling" will be required for
> interworking. I'm not sure this culture want to adopt the market
> fragmentation attitudes present in the SAML adoption space for example. We
> have to  remember this is the web, focused on consumers (not B2B). B2B is
> secondary, and must be an "overlay" on  the consumer  infrastructure– much
> like military folks overlay additional trust on _*Commodity*_ SSL when
> needed.
>
>
>
> It's an important step for Openid to frontally address trust networking (as
> Nate has headed for a year now). But, the charter needs to generic and open
> minded, not a rubber stamp of whatever works at JAL today. At the same time,
> it needs a practical orientation, so the debate doesn't just become a tech
> vendor-fest - each wanting their own stuff to get adopted to help their
> mindshare marketing.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:53 AM
> *To:* David Recordon
> *Cc:* general at openid.net; Peter Williams
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID] CX proposal status
>
>
>
> Right. And the response to them were:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:36 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think that's a fair assessment, though missing the piece that the
> proposal hasn't been making it clear enough that CX must build on top of
> existing OpenID specifications
>
>
>
> the revised proposal (a version before the current one on the wiki) clearly
> stated it
>
>
>
>  and that the working group should not be allowed to produce an
> indeterminate number of specifications.
>
>
>
> the word "series of" was used to make room for the possibility of
> modularization instead of a monolithic one, and it is the scope that limits
> the work of the WG and not the number of specs. In the early stage of use
> case driven WG, it is often difficult to determine how it is going to be
> modularized at the outset. Having said that, I have removed the words
> "series of" as well.
>
>
>
> =nat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to the call.
>
> --David
>
>
>
> ----- "Nat Sakimura" <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some members of spec council suggested rejection on the basis of (1) the
> scope being too wide (2) not getting enough support from the community,
> i.e., probalby on 4.2(c). Some proposers replied back to those points in
> specs-council ML that (1) being usecase driven, it may look that scope is
> wide but it really is not, (2) it has support from EU, Japan, and US members
> and suggested a call to close on this. The call is being planned right now.
> >
> > Would that be a fair summary?
> >
> > =nat
> >
> >
>
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Peter Williams <pwilliams at rapattoni.com>
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
>
> Can anyone summarize for folks here (in ~100 words) the status of the specs
> council discussion on the CX proposal?
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at openid.net
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > --
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________ general mailing list
> general at openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090116/2553a2d2/attachment-0002.htm>