[Openid-specs-ab] OIDF Note Well
Mike Jones
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Fri Mar 23 16:01:16 UTC 2012
I've corrected a few typos. Here's the revised version (both inline and attached). We should use this for all working group meetings, including Account Chooser, etc.
-- Mike
NOTICE: An OpenID IPR contribution agreement is not mandatory in order to participate in this workshop. If participants provide feedback, they (on behalf of themselves and any organization they represent) are deemed to agree that: Attendee gives the OIDF the right to use their feedback and comments. Attendee grants to the OpenID Foundation a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license, with the right to directly and indirectly sublicense, to use, copy, license, publish, and distribute and exploit the Feedback in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the Feedback for the purpose of developing and promoting OpenID Foundation specifications and enabling the implementation of the same. Also, by giving Feedback, attendee warrants that they have rights to provide this feedback. Please note that feedback is not treated as confidential and that OpenID Foundation is not required to incorporate feedback into any version of an OIDF specification.
From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:05 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 22-Mar-12
Per my todo item, here is the "Note Well" OIDF version:
NOTICE: An OpenID IPR contribution agreement is not mandatory in order to participate in this workshop. If participants provide feedback, they (on behalf of themselves and any organization they represent) are deemed to agree that;Attendee gives s OIDF the right to use their feedback and comments. Attendee grants to OpenID Foundation a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license, with the right to directly and indirectly sublicense, to use, copy, license, publish, and distribute and exploit the Feedback in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the Feedback for the purpose of developing and promoting OpenID Foundation specifications and enabling the implementation of the same. Also, by giving Feedback, attendee warrants that they have rights to provide this feedback. Please note that feedback is not treated as confidential and that OpenID Foundation is not required to incorporate feedback into any version of an OIDF specification.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
Spec call notes 22-Mar-12
Mike Jones
Nat Sakimura
John Bradley
Edmund Jay
Agenda:
Open Issues
Editing
Issued on Hold
Self-issued OP Prototype
Paris Preparation
Agenda for the Paris Meeting
Open Issues:
#555 & #556 were typos - Assigned to John & Mike respectively
#539: Messages - 0. Add scope for offline access
Deferred to Paris
Brian Campbell's note on inconsistent treatment of id_token in access token response
He's right - filed #557
Editing:
John has done the issuer identifier change #513
He's almost done with #554 - the registration parameters change
Mike will send a note to Yaron after John finishes checkins and Mike does a release
Issues on Hold:
Take off hold after release:
#41 Discovery - 6. Security Consideration needs to be written
#210 Registration - 4.1 No minimum required fields
#220 Registration 4.1. application_url (Normative)
#251 Example domain/host consistency
#257: Acknowledgements and other sections need review
#281 Obtaining claims without requiring additional round trips
#314 Basic, Messages - Semantics of "verified" not specified
#349 Standard, Messages - Substantial duplicated normative content
#352 Standard 2.3.5.1, Messages - More duplicated content (editorial)
#360 Registration 2.1 - What is application_type (native, web) used for?
#361: Registration 3.1 - Localization for application_name
#363 Registration 3.3 - Why must client_secret change with each response?
Needs review after release:
#199 Messages - 5 underspecified use of signing and encryption
We did not consider issues against the session management spec
Self-issued OP Prototype:
Nat noted that we may want response_type=token id_token userinfo
where the userinfo results are returned directly as a JWT without another round trip
We should consider this as part of the self-issued discussions in Paris
Paris Preparation:
Mike needs to send draft of his presentation for review
Agenda for the Paris Meeting:
We want the OpenID version of the Note Well
We need to get an attendee list
Give overview and goals
Want to review Connect and its relationship with the IETF specs
Specs to finish
Compare discovery
Describe interop work - John
OSIS site
Andreas's site
How to build an RP - Nat
Account Chooser
Play Eric's videos
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120323/5ae0cdfd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OIDF Note Well.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14123 bytes
Desc: OIDF Note Well.docx
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120323/5ae0cdfd/attachment.docx>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list