<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"PMingLiU","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>If the different pieces are separately describable and
separately usable (and in particular, separately reusable), I, for one, believe
that it would be far more advantageous to the community for these pieces to
actually be separate working group deliverables, each of which can be judged on
their own merits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> --
Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
general-bounces@openid.net [mailto:general-bounces@openid.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nat
Sakimura<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Williams<br>
<b>Cc:</b> general@openid.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OpenID] [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working
group<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Well, yeah, but I think
specs-committee is not talking about (d). <br>
<br>
I also considered splitting it into dsig and cx, but current spec process is a
kind of heavy lifting, so I was hoping that I could do it in one shot. Also,
one of the beauty of OpenID specs were not being modularized so much, so that
you do not have to go through so many specs. From the point of veiw of the
modularity, I would split the authentication spec as well into (1) Discovery
(of both canonical ID e.g., URI with fragment and services), (2) Assertion
Format (3) Signature methods (4) Protocols. [I actually prefer this way, but
I've got a feeling that this community wants a monolithic spec.]<br>
<br>
=nat<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Peter Williams <<a
href="mailto:pwilliams@rapattoni.com">pwilliams@rapattoni.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>It will fail d.<br>
<br>
but so will almost any proposal. D is just an excuse used to shoot down the
direction. Its subjective, and one simply hires any 2 bit lawyer to (always)
say there exists liability greater than zero.<br>
<br>
Break your proposal down. Make it simpler.<br>
<br>
The scheme for symmetric signatures supported by the symmetrickey management
regime in openid auth V2 will be augmented with a scheme based on public key
signatures supported by asymmetric key management.<br>
<br>
Get that passed. then make another.<br>
<br>
An openid extension will be specified communicating text values that will allow
entities to attach legal terms to openid auth messages, specially focussing on
forming those private associations over which assertions may bear public key
signatures.<br>
<br>
Get it passed.<br>
<br>
<br>
Then call for a merger: half way through, once the politics has died down a
bit. Recognize its running straight into xmldsig signature's space.<br>
<br>
Each of those needs to be now defensible in its own right. The first is
substantiated under the desire to sastify legal signature laws reqiring that
qualified certificates support certain types of signed assertions (eu) . The
second is substantiated on...<br>
<br>
<br>
Getting the propopsal passed has nothing to do with specifying the technical
solution.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Sakimura Nat <<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:10 PM<br>
To: David Recordon <<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a>>;
Mike Jones <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a> <<a
href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a>>; <a
href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a> <<a
href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
I did not know that specs-council list is actually subscribable.<br>
I now have subscribed to it.<br>
<br>
>From what I see from the archive, the biggest objection seems to be the
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 be
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 it
needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized such
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 into
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 $B!x(B4.1);<br>
<br>
(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID
community's purpose;<br>
<br>
(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient
support to succeed<br>
or to deliver proposed deliverables within
projected completion dates; or<br>
<br>
(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause
legal liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
<br>
On what point the current proposal falls into?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B:9=P?M(B</span>: David Recordon [<a
href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$BAw?.F|;~(B</span>: 2008<span lang=ZH-TW>$BG/(B</span>12<span lang=ZH-TW>$B7n(B</span>24<span
lang=ZH-TW>$BF|(B</span> 2:54<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B08@h(B</span>: Mike Jones<br>
CC: Sakimura Nat; <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B7oL>(B</span>: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working
group<br>
<br>
I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first approach
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=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20
PM, Mike Jones <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a><mailto:<a
href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or specific 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 communicate
something like this position to the membership to guide their vote about this
working group:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this proposal
to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seems to
propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do
accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is
not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such as AX
1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to these
underlying protocols.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a recommendation
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>
-- Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>From: David Recordon [mailto:<a
href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a
href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a>>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM<br>
To: Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Cc: Mike Jones; <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><mailto:<a
href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW:
Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1"
target="_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 develop
"A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't
it already defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group
be developing a new signature mechanism?<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09
PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a><mailto:<a
href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
The most current version is here: <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0"
target="_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>
=nat<br>
<br>
Mike Jones wrote:<br>
<br>
Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on
this spec$B!D(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=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>