Forming a WG and gathering community consensus are not two separate options, they go hand in hand.<br><br>With a WG there would be clarity on what is the direction that things are expected to go and chances are that the community discussion will become increasingly focused and progress towards a well-informed and argued consent. Without a WG there is also limitations on what can be accomplished because of a lack of IPR guidance.<br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM, David Fuelling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sappenin@gmail.com">sappenin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The point below (about the community needing to decide if it's going to support webfinger) is just one of many questions I'd like community to decide concerning OID Auth 2.1 Discovery and Identifier support.<br><br>
Maybe this is where a WG should be formed....I'm not really sure. It seems kind of backwards to form a working group about something like email identifiers (e.g.) and then come back to the community with some decision. It seems like the community should reach some consensus first, and then we start a WG. Perhaps I have the wrong notion of what a Working Group is.<br>
<br>At any rate, *in the absence of a WG* on any of these issues, I'm curious to know the community's opinion on these questions so we can all know what the general consensus is. <br><br>So, at the risk of igniting a firestorm, I created a bunch of Jyte claims and embedded them in the wiki. Please share your vote (and thus your opinion) if you so wish. <br>
<br><a href="https://openid.pbworks.com/Identifier-and-Discovery-2_1-Questions" target="_blank">https://openid.pbworks.com/Identifier-and-Discovery-2_1-Questions</a><br><br>Also, please note that I'm not authoritative about the questions. Feel free to embed your own claim into the wiki page (though I tried to be fair in the framing of the questions).<br>
<br>David<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Santosh Rajan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:santrajan@gmail.com" target="_blank">santrajan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dirk Balfanz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:balfanz@google.com" target="_blank">balfanz@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>I Webfinger gives you everything you need. The OpenID community just needs to decide whether the email-like identifiers falling out of webfinger are acceptable OpenIDs.</div>
<div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><span style="border-collapse: collapse;">I think you have a raised a very valid issue here. I didn't realize that first time round. You are right. I don't see any point in continuing with the email issue without a clear answer to this question.</span> </div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<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><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>--Breno<br><br>+1 (650) 214-1007 desk<br>+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)<br>MTV-41-3 : 383-A <br>PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br>