[Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Oct 17 16:54:38 UTC 2013


I completely disagree. We have feature frozen months ago and we should not
allow any feature bloat now. We have decided it and we must adhere to it.
It is a process and trust issue. Also, the timing is critical for several
things that you probably have already heard.

If it could not be done with an extension, I would be more sympathetic.
However, in this case, you can do it as an extension, and that is still
conformant once that extension gets voted. The core does not prohibit it.

And do not mix up Google's postMessage and Form encoding + POSTing.
The fragment encoding was supposed to be used with postMessage and that's
what Google is doing.

Even if you had the new feature text on Monday, there is not enough review
period.
Also, note that the Monday meeting has no authority to decide on such
things. It has to be done in the list, and we have to give ample time to
respond.

We MUST NOT push any new feature through so quickly.

Sorry to be a process police here, but that's what I have to do as a chair.


2013/10/18 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>

>  I actually think that getting the features right, such that developers
> will actually use what’s in the spec, rather than do something
> non-conformant, is more important than a few days of schedule.****
>
> ** **
>
> It’s pretty telling that Google, Ping, and Microsoft all are using
> something other than fragment encoding in some cases for Implicit/Hybrid
> flows.  Far better to enable interop on these non-fragment return types
> than have everyone do something outside the spec.****
>
> ** **
>
> As we said on the call, I’ll write up a concrete proposal so people can
> review it in advance of Monday.****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, we’re late in the process, but far better to make a late addition
> than to ship something that we know has defects that will cause people to
> do things not in the spec.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:19 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13****
>
> ** **
>
> Please add to the note that Nat has pointed out that this is not the time
> to add a new feature that it can and should be dealt with extension. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, John has pointed out that expanding the feature will cause
> interoperability problems. ****
>
> ** **
>
> As part of the AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider explanation, it was pointed out
> that the UI would show flash and button, and that was the reason we have
> dropped it from the current Connect spec. ****
>
> In fact, not only AOL but many others did it in OpenID 2.0 as that was the
> only option, and it was also something that many of us wanted to escape
> from. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The reason sited in support of form POSTing were as follows: ****
>
> ** **
>
> 1) It is done by SAML and WS. ****
>
> 2) Fragment would not be able to hold large payload. ****
>
> 3) If it is not there, implementers will do stupid things like including
> access token in the query parameter. ****
>
> 4) If the browser is not Javascript enabled, it is the last resort. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the above, 1) does not make sense. The web technology has advanced so
> much since they were designed. We have considered the option previously and
> dropped. ****
>
> As to 2) is concerned, the statement is false. Fragment can hold pretty
> big payload. It was tested during the self-issued testing, and we found out
> that the limit is actually pretty large. We were sending photos as a claim
> in id_token as a result of it. (Note: I need to double check - since we
> were concerned mostly on mobile platform, we may not have tested IE.) ****
>
> The reason 3) is not a good one either. We should just write an
> implementers NOTE that they should never do this. ****
>
> As a result, only the credible reason is 4). However, this means that a
> lot of other things at the destination site will break, too. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I understand that there are people who want to do it. ****
>
> Even some of NRI's internal developers wants to do it. ****
>
> However, that is not a good enough reason to get it into the core at this
> point in time. ****
>
> In addition, there will be bunch of moving parts that we have to fix if we
> were to do it. ****
>
> We should not do it in three days. We should take more time to consider
> various implications. ****
>
> We are finalizing the core spec now. The cut off date is end of this week.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> It should be done as an extension. I oppose to do it in the core. ****
>
> Our priority to get the Core out of the door, now. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/10/17 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>****
>
> Spec call notes 17-Oct-13****
>
>  ****
>
> Mike Jones****
>
> Brian Campbell****
>
> George Fletcher****
>
> John Bradley****
>
> Nat Sakimura****
>
> Edmund Jay****
>
>  ****
>
> Agenda:****
>
>                Open Issues****
>
>                Multiple response type requests returning values in ways
> other than fragments****
>
>                Document Restructuring and Review****
>
>  ****
>
> Open Issues:****
>
>                #873: session 4.1. Can we use opbs with http (not httponly)
> ****
>
>                               We developed proposed text for this****
>
>                #879 & #880: Hosting self-issued.me****
>
>                               John will get the cheapest Amazon VM and
> give Edmund access to it****
>
>  ****
>
> Multiple response type requests returning values in ways other than
> fragments****
>
>                Microsoft has asked for a POST binding, like WS-Federation
> and SAML have****
>
>                Ping has an extra response_type component x_post****
>
>                               This causes the responses to POST to be
> returned as form-encoded body content****
>
>                Google has a way of registering clients to use a
> postMessage binding****
>
>                               They do that by registering a JavaScript
> origin, rather than response_type****
>
>                AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider often uses the POST response
> because of large AX responses****
>
>                John had proposed a registration parameter for this:****
>
>                               redirect_type   fragment | POST | postMessage
> ****
>
>                This would be discoverable as****
>
>                               redirect_types_supported****
>
>                Another reason for this is to not hit fragment size limits*
> ***
>
>                Mike will file a bug on this to make a concrete proposal***
> *
>
>                We will discuss this at the Monday meeting****
>
>  ****
>
> Document Restructuring and Review:****
>
>                Mike posted a Word version of the Core spec with tracked
> changes turned on****
>
>                               People are requested to mark it up with
> specific proposed changes this week****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>



-- 
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/20131018/e94e2e0f/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list