[Openid-specs-ab] Spec Call Notes 12-Aug-24

[Tom Jones]

I do not believe that anything I said was incorrect or mischaracterized.
If my saying the truth about what Joseph did was inappropriate, it is only
because Joseph's actions were inappropriate.
For the first part it is documented here:
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/2121/enable-a-device-to-direct-requests-from
for the second part, just ask Joseph himself what he told me when I tried
to get the query moved in oid4vp.
..tom


On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 2:40 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com>
wrote:

> Chairing or co-chairing working groups is a challenging task that can,
> unfortunately, leave some people unhappy.
>
> However, I believe that statement is a gross mischaracterization of both
> Joseph's actions and intentions.
>
> I must admit I'm not familiar with an OIDF code of conduct or lack
> thereof, but the statements made certainly seem as though they border on
> inappropriateness.
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 3:09 PM Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> I object to oid4 parameters in a federation document for a different
>> reason. There should be no dependency in federation that limits what
>> protocols are used for wallets.
>>
>> Joseph has been objecting to specs that might step on his scope for a
>> long time. And then uses his prerogative as chair to avoid talking about
>> issues there because they don't fit his own objectives. Something is really
>> broken here.
>>
>> thx ..Tom (mobile)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 1:31 PM Joseph Heenan via Openid-specs-ab <
>> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> A couple of comments:
>>>
>>> [Openid-specs-ab] Call for Working Group Adoption of OpenID Federation
>>> Wallet Architectures 1.0
>>>                 There's been some discussion of the contribution and
>>> whether it should be adopted as-is
>>>                 Joseph thought that some metadata values currently
>>> defined there should be in other specs
>>>                                 In the long term, everyone responding to
>>> him agreed with him
>>>                                 There was disagreement on whether
>>> adoption should wait for these values to be first defined elsewhere
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no need at all to hold up adoption of this spec - the metadata
>>> items that are outside of the scope of this specification and hence belong
>>> in other specs should simply be removed and (if not already) submitted to
>>> the correct working group so that the important work of getting a profile
>>> of Federation for wallets can proceed. This could happen very quickly.
>>>
>>>                 These were written down now to enable interoperable
>>> implementations of wallet ecosystems using Federation to be developed
>>>                 Mike asked Nat to be ready to make the adoption decision
>>> as chair next week
>>>                                 Since John and Mike are authors
>>>
>>>
>>> It is important to clarify that this is a decision for the working group
>>> to make, not the chairs, as per
>>> https://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2017/06/OIDF-Policy-Process-Document-Final-6-19-2017.pdf -
>>> it is clear to me that adoption currently cannot proceed as there are
>>> unresolved comments and the ’substantial support’ bar for consensus has not
>>> been reached, nor has a formal vote been started. I suggest we instead
>>> attempt to reach consensus on the 22nd call, unless we manage to reach
>>> consensus sooner via email.
>>>
>>>                 Giuseppe sent a detailed message describing each of the
>>> defined metadata parameters and their purpose
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I’m travelling this week / at a conference so haven’t had
>>> a chance to properly digest the responses yet, but I hope to do so within
>>> the next week. However my objection is not to the purpose of the
>>> parameters, but to them not being Federation specific nor needed to make
>>> federation work for wallets, and hence must not be in a document with the
>>> current title when there are much more appropriate documents for them to be
>>> in. The fact that at least one of the proposed parameters also doesn’t
>>> actually work is a separate issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20240813/7a0207d2/attachment-0001.html>