No subject
Tue Jun 2 17:05:09 UTC 2009
more we need to do on the OpenID side when it comes to email identifiers,
except resolve any issues relating to IPR. Do you agree?
That said, how do we resolve the IPR issues surrounding webfinger
(basically, all the points Chris Messina mentioned in his previous
message). To me this hinges on the webfinger folks picking some sort of
formalized standards process to work in, so that OpenID can use it properly.
If you look at XRD, that's moving forward inside of OASIS. OAuth is moving
forward inside of IETF. There's the OWF, but I'm not sure if they're ready
to "house" a spec just yet. And lastly, there's the OpenID Foundation
(though admitedly this seems like an odd place to house webfinger).
> So I think we should form a working group of people like you, who have
> already worked on this, and others who may want to work on this.
>
> But I also agree with Chris's view that we don't need more working groups
> and need to fold this into 2.1.
>
+1. I don't think OpenID 2.1 Discovery needs its own working group, because
I can see that section being only 2 sentences (I'm oversimplifying, but you
get the idea):
1. OpenID discovery can be used on any identifier that is discoverable
via XRD.
2. Email-like identifier discovery should use webfinger.
The only two reasons i can think of for the need of a separate working group
> is to maintain momentum, and to have a group people solely focussed on
> discovery part of 2.1.
I think the people focusing on Discovery are already alive and kicking in
the XRD TC. They're going to solve Discovery in a general sort of way,
allowing OpenID to utilize it in a specific manner. In essence, the XRD
folks are doing most of the work already.
Moving forward, we need to figure out how OpenID 2.1 is going to be able to
use WebFinger.
--0016364187655e264d046b8ab44b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Replies inline...<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at =
5:10 AM, Santosh Rajan <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:santrajan at gm=
ail.com" target=3D"_blank">santrajan at gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204=
, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The way I see it we are the "end-users" for webfinger and XRD. Th=
eir<br>
objective will be to cater to the our requirements and others like us. We<b=
r>
need not wait for them to get on with our work. Actually they can use our<b=
r>
feedback to refine and fine tune their work.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>With regard to webfinger, that spec needs to be "=
;specified" before we can use it in OpenID 2.1.=A0 My thinking is that=
it would be helpful to start formalizing webfinger since in the OpenID 2.1=
spec, there will probably just be a single sentence or two saying, "e=
mail-like identifiers are supported in OpenID discovery by using the webfin=
ger protocol".<br>
<br>From a specification development perspective, I'm not sure there=
9;s a lot more we need to do on the OpenID side when it comes to email iden=
tifiers, except resolve any issues relating to IPR.=A0 Do you agree?<br>
<br>That said, how do we resolve the IPR issues surrounding webfinger (basi=
cally, all the points Chris Messina mentioned in his previous message).=A0 =
To me this hinges on the webfinger folks picking some sort of formalized st=
andards process to work in, so that OpenID can use it properly.<br>
<br>If you look at XRD, that's moving forward inside of OASIS.=A0 OAuth=
is moving forward inside of IETF.=A0 There's the OWF, but I'm not =
sure if they're ready to "house" a spec just yet.=A0 And last=
ly, there's the OpenID Foundation (though admitedly this seems like an =
odd place to house webfinger).<br>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid =
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">So I thi=
nk we should form a working group of people like you, who have<br>
already worked on this, and others who may want to work on this.<br>
</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
But I also agree with Chris's view that we don't need more working =
groups<br>
and need to fold this into 2.1.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>+1.=A0 I don't think OpenID 2.1 Discovery needs i=
ts own working group, because I can see that section being only 2 sentences=
(I'm oversimplifying, but you get the idea):<br><ol><li>OpenID discove=
ry can be used on any identifier that is discoverable via XRD.</li>
<li>Email-like identifier discovery should use webfinger. <br></li></ol></d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(20=
4, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The only two r=
easons i can think of for the need of a separate working group<br>
is to maintain momentum, and to have a group people solely focussed on<br>
discovery part of 2.1.</blockquote><div><br>I think the people focusing on =
Discovery are already alive and kicking in the XRD TC.=A0 They're going=
to solve Discovery in a general sort of way, allowing OpenID to utilize it=
in a specific manner.=A0 In essence, the XRD folks are doing most of the w=
ork already.<br>
<br>Moving forward, we need to figure out how OpenID 2.1 is going to be abl=
e to use WebFinger.<br>
</div></div>
--0016364187655e264d046b8ab44b--
More information about the general
mailing list