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

Fri Aug 16 13:00:44 UTC 2024

Hi Tom,

Responses inline:

> On 13 Aug 2024, at 19:22, Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> 
> 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

Thanks for posting the link. I’ll leave others to read that and decide for themselves if anything inappropriate happened. From my side, I’m simply trying to triage issues, and DCP WG already has a lot of open items, so having duplicates, especially in the wrong issue tracker for unclear reasons, is unhelpful. Despite it being in the wrong place, I nevertheless attempted to clarify what was being asked.

> for the second part, just ask Joseph himself what he told me when I tried to get the query moved in oid4vp.

I think there’s a very simple answer here - the DCP WG proposed reworking or replacing presentation definition due to implementor unhappiness. The working group developed a set of requirements for the replacement (documented at 
https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VP/issues/144 and a few other specific issues tagged with the query language label).

I believe Tom proposed an alternative query language, and I pointed out it didn’t meet the requirements the working group had set out, and also contained items that were outside of the scope of the query language and instead appeared to be an alternative to the entire OID4VP profile.

The chairs are here to facilitate the working group, not to dictate what is done (other than where there are process issues, in which case the OIDF process document requires that chairs make sure the process is followed). At the start of almost every call I (or Kristina or Torsten) ask if anyone wants to add anything to the agenda, and I can’t recall a request ever beeing refused (though sometimes we may defer items to a later call depending on time constraints / priorities).

Once the working group has made a decision (as has been done, for example, in the case of the requirements for the query language which had extensive discussion both on the document, the GitHub issues and in working group meetings over a period of 6 weeks or more) the chairs have a pretty wide discretion to enact that decision, unless genuinely new information comes to light in which case we ask the working group if that information changes their position.

If anyone believes a chair has acted inappropriately they are encouraged to bring that up as soon as possible, with whichever seems appropriate of the chair in question / the other chairs / the working group. Most issues can be quickly resolved. If not there is an appeals process and an email can be sent to director at oidf.org <mailto:director at oidf.org> with details of the issue and the proposed actions that could be taken to resolve the issue, normally within 14 days of becoming aware of the issue.

For clarity, Tom, if you would like to ask the working group to adopt your proposal you are welcome to do so, and we’d usually discuss it on the next scheduled working group call (please indicate if there is a particular call you’d like it to be discussed on), if there was support on a call we’d move for a formal adoption call on the mailing list.

Thanks

Joseph

>  ..tom
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 2:40 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20240816/7c3665b3/attachment-0001.html>