[Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 7-Jun-12
Mike Jones
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 8 00:07:16 UTC 2012
Spec call notes 7-Jun-12
Nat Sakimura
Mike Jones
George Fletcher
Edmund Jay
John Bradley
Agenda:
Next Interop
claims_in_id_token Issue
Session Management
Edits and Release
Open Issues
Next Interop:
We agreed that we need to clone the OC3 interop to create OC4 before adding
We will need Pam's buy-in and time to do this
claims_in_id_token Issue:
We agreed that it is easier to reach consensus when you can hear one another's voices than via e-mail
We will try to resolve this issue soon that way
Nat will send out a Doodle poll for special call time to discuss this issue
We will schedule the call at a time that makes it convenient for Europeans
We discussed that at John's proposal to have 4 new scope elements makes the scope elements not stateful
profile_idt email_idt address_idt phone_idt
Developers are rejecting claims_in_id_token because it made the 4 scope definitions stateful
Session Management:
Nat began transcribing the Session Management notes
He sent out initial notes that he needs feedback on
He noted that this spec will be quite different than the others, as it contains local APIs
Edits and Release:
The self-issued edits may be ready for review tomorrow - issue #566
After that, we'll do a release with that functionality only
Open Issues:
We discussed some of the open issues. There were no new ones.
#576: Discovery - Monitor IETF discovery spec decisions
We're seeing no movement on WebFinger
We will need to decide soon what to do
We could:
Stay with SWD
Try to profile a subset of WebFinger
Profile host-meta
#257: Acknowledgements and other sections need review
Nat complied a proposed list of acknowledgements
#539 Messages - 0. Add scope for offline access
AOL's approach requires stateful session state, Google's is stateless
This issue needs an owner and a concrete proposal
Assigned to George, who will work with Breno
#584 Messages - Username claim
We discussed whether syntax restrictions should be imposed and if so, what
No one on the call was particularly enamored with the claim
Relying parties could just use the part of the e-mail address before the @ to achieve approximately the same thing
The consensus on the call was that this field is adding more confusion than value
Resolved as WontFix
#593 Standard: redirect_uri registration & matching
George argued that requiring matching query parameters is overkill
We only got through the issues up to #593
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120608/715c07df/attachment.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list