No subject

re we need to do on the OpenID side when it comes to email identifiers, exc=
ept resolve any issues relating to IPR.  Do you agree?

That said, how do we resolve the IPR issues surrounding webfinger (basicall=
y, all the points Chris Messina mentioned in his previous message).  To me =
this hinges on the webfinger folks picking some sort of formalized standard=
s 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 read=
y to "house" a spec just yet.  And lastly, there's the OpenID Foundation (t=
hough 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, becaus=
e I can see that section being only 2 sentences (I'm oversimplifying, but y=
ou get the idea):

 1.  OpenID discovery can be used on any identifier that is discoverable vi=
a XRD.
 2.  Email-like identifier discovery should use webfinger.

The only two reasons i can think of for the need of a separate working grou=
p
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 t=
he XRD TC.  They're going to solve Discovery in a general sort of way, allo=
wing 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.