[Openid-specs-ab] Draft Connect Call Notes (2024-09-19)

Thu Sep 19 16:33:12 UTC 2024

Dear AB/Connect WG:

Here is the draft meeting notes for the Atlantic call on 2024-09-19.

HTML version is available at
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/wiki/Connect_Meeting_Notes_2024-09-19_Atlantic

========================================
Connect Call Notes (2024-09-19)
========================================
Date: 2024-09-19 14:00 UTC - 15:00 UTC

Agenda
========
1.   Events
1.1.   OIDF co-hosting mDL hackathons with CA DMV
1.2.   SIDI Hub Japan
1.3.   OIDF Workshop
1.4.   DCP WG F2F
1.5.   OSW 2024
2.   Increasing Meeting Frequency:
3.   Adoption of OpenID Federation Wallet Architectures Draft :
3.1.   Concerns about Spec Quality:
3.2.   Process Concerns:
3.3.   Alternative Solutions:
3.4.   Points Made by Participants:
3.4.1.   Brian Campbell:
3.4.2.   Joseph Heenan:
3.4.3.   Aaron Pareck:
3.4.4.   Lucasz Jaromin:
3.4.5.   David Chadwick:
3.4.6.   Sudesha Shetty
3.4.7.   Bjorn Hjelm
3.4.8.   Jan Vereechen
3.4.9.   Nat Sakimura
3.5.   Outcome:
3.6.   Next Steps:

Attendees:
=============
* Nat Sakimura (Chair)
* Aaron Parecki
* Bjorn Hjelm
* Brian Campbell
* David Chadwick
* Jan Vereechen
* Joseph Heenan (OIDF & Authlete)
* Lucasz Jaromin
* Sudesha Shetty

Events
==========
OIDF co-hosting mDL hackathons with CA DMV
-----------------------------------------------
OIDF co-hosting mDL hackathons with CA DMV on 10/1 at the CHM and 11/1 in
Sacramento. Details here: https://openid.net/oidf-cohosts-mdl-hackathons/

SIDI Hub Japan
-------------------
Oct 25 – SIDI Hub Japan in Tokyo being hosted by the Japanese Government:
https://sidi-hub.community/summits/

There is also a reception planned in conjunction with it.

OIDF Workshop
------------------
OIDF workshop on Monday, October 28th prior to IIW at Cisco in San Jose.
Registration is open and required:
https://openid.net/registration-oidf-workshop-cisco-october-28-2024/

DCP WG F2F
---------------
DCP WG on Monday AM prior IIW also at Cisco for those interested.
Registration is open and required:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/oidf-dcp-working-group-hybrid-meeting-at-cisco-monday-october-28-2024-tickets-991309442227
.

OSW 2024
--------------
February 26-28 OSW – Reykjavik, Iceland. Session submission deadlines are
11/24 and 1/12: https://oauth.secworkshop.events/osw2025

OIDF calendar on website is current: https://openid.net/calendar/

Increasing Meeting Frequency:
===============================
A proposal to increase the meeting frequency from bi-weekly to weekly was
discussed.
Brian Campbell objected due to time constraints and concerns about
potentially using lack of dissent as a means of pushing forward items
without true consensus. The proposal was ultimately rejected.

Adoption of OpenID Federation Wallet Architectures Draft :
=============================================================
The main point of contention was the adoption of a draft spec.

Concerns about Spec Quality:
--------------------------------
Multiple participants, including Brian Campbell and Joseph Heenan raised
concerns about the quality and completeness of the draft spec. Issues
included missing sections, unrendered diagrams, and compatibility issues
with the browser API.

Process Concerns:
--------------------------------
Concerns were raised about the process leading up to the adoption call.
This included inadequate review time, insufficient attention to feedback,
and potential manipulation of the process to push forward the spec without
genuine working group consensus.

Alternative Solutions:
--------------------------------
Suggestions for alternative approaches were proposed, including:

* Breaking down the large draft into smaller, more manageable specs.
* Focusing on establishing a high-level direction and scope before seeking
adoption.
* Addressing the specific compatibility concerns with the DCP working group.

Points Made by Participants:
--------------------------------
Brian Campbell:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Voiced strong objections to both the increased meeting frequency and the
adoption of the draft spec in its current state.
* Emphasized concerns about time constraints and the need for thorough
review and genuine consensus.
* Criticized the quality of the draft spec, citing missing sections,
unrendered diagrams, and compatibility issues.
* Expressed dissatisfaction with the process, highlighting potential
manipulation and disregard for feedback.
* Suggested addressing the compatibility concerns with the DCP working
group.

Joseph Heenan:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Raised concerns about the completeness of the draft spec, noting that
sections were added back in as examples despite previous agreement to
remove them.
* Acknowledged the overload problem and the difficulty of keeping up with
the volume of specs.
* Suggested that adopting a smaller document and building it out
iteratively might have been a more effective approach.
* Clarified that the draft spec was presented to, but not formally
considered by, the DCP working group.
* Confirmed that compatibility concerns with the browser API were a
significant reason for DCP's reluctance to move forward with the spec.
* Suggested the possibility of holding special topic calls within the DCP
working group to address federation specifically.
* Ultimately stated that, despite concerns about the text itself, he
remained supportive of the overall concept.

Aaron Pareck:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* He agreed the document wasn't in good shape, having skimmed it and found
large sections missing.
* He felt it was reasonable to ask the authors to fill out the details
before requesting adoption.

Lucasz Jaromin:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Acknowledged the overload problem and the challenges of keeping up with
the high volume of specs.
* Noted that while the spec had some shortcomings, he believed these could
be improved after adoption.
* Voiced support for adopting the spec.

David Chadwick:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Observed that the spec had merit but did not directly participate in the
discussion.
* Shared an anecdote from the VC working group about a feature that was
rejected despite some support, highlighting the potential for unfair
outcomes.
* Suggested that optional features might be a better way to address
situations where there is not unanimous agreement.

Sudesha Shetty
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* He has reviewed the draft spec and agrees with Brian that sections are
missing and diagrams are not rendering correctly.
* He believed these issues could be improved after the spec is adopted.
* He expressed his support for adopting the draft spec.

Bjorn Hjelm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On handling draft specifications:

* Noted that other working groups have adopted more skeletal drafts,
leaving room for further development.
* Mentioned examples where drafts were dissected, with parts becoming
separate specifications as the topic evolved.
* Pointed out that the working group can document objections and concerns
in the meeting minutes and move on.

On working group dynamics and leadership:

* Expressed concern about the underlying current of overlapping work
between the Connect and DCP working groups.
* Suggested a need for leadership from both groups to come to an agreement
on how to divide the work.
* Emphasized the importance of ensuring that OpenID specifications are
interoperable and not incompatible with each other.

Jan Vereechen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On working through the draft within the working group:

* Expressed confusion as to why the draft's flaws were a barrier to
adoption, believing the working group could be a place to work those issues
out.

On support for the draft:

* Stated support for the draft as it aligned with topical work at his
company, Meeco.
Mentioned specific use cases they intended to apply the work to.

Nat Sakimura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Pointed out that adopting a document does not mean the content is set in
stone and can be revised later.
* Sought to gauge the overall sentiment towards adopting the document by
asking for explicit support and objections. There was an acknowledged lack
of consensus regarding the document's adoption.
* Expressed concern about the absence of some individuals who had
previously voiced their support in writing but did not participate in the
call.
* Pointed out that there is an option of creating a new working group to
focus on the Wallet Federation Spec if a sufficient number of people were
interested in pursuing the work.

Outcome:
------------
* The discussion highlighted significant concerns about both the draft spec
and the process leading up to the adoption call.
* There was no clear consensus on adopting the spec in its current state.
* Further discussion and potential action are needed to address the issues
raised, including the possibility of involving the DCP working group more
directly.

Next Steps:
----------------
Nat Sakimura will:
* Bring the proposal to reduce the frequency of Monday calls to the Monday
meeting for further discussion.
* Document the objections and concerns raised during this call in the
meeting minutes.
* Send out a draft of the meeting minutes recording objections.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20240920/e4c83ac2/attachment-0001.html>