[Openid-specs-ab] [board-private] OIDF Note Well

[Eric Sachs]

>>We should use this for all working group meetings.
Are there specific guidelines on when/where to communicate this message?
 Does it just need to be given verbally at the beginning of in-person
meetings or scheduled calls with new members?


On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)****
>
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> board-private mailing list
> board-private at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board-private
>
>


-- 
Eric Sachs | Senior Product Manager | esachs at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120326/9693689a/attachment.html>