[Openid-specs-ab] Roland Hedberg's federation specification
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Tue Jul 12 19:17:22 UTC 2016
First, let me say that a specification needing work isn't an argument for it not being adopted by a working group - quite the contrary. Adoption by the working group helps ensure that it gets the attention it deserves - even at an early stage. As a point of reference, the initial specifications for what became OpenID Connect were quite different than the eventual final specifications. Iteration of implementation, interop, and specification development helped refine it and improve it. I expect the same to happen here.
Let me also comment on the "democratic process" remark. All OpenID working groups operate by consensus, rather than "democracy". We actively seek the opinions of all the participants and to understand their goals and work towards decisions that maximize consensus. This isn't "democracy" where one votes. Rather, we're trying for a much higher degree of consensus than would be achieved by voting. This is true of other standards development organizations as well, for instance, the IETF.
As for participation, the OpenID process is designed to make it as easy as possible for all to participate and develop specifications that are freely available for all to use. Anyone can join the working group for free. OpenID foundation membership isn't even required. For more details on how to join, please see http://openid.net/wg/connect/.
From: Openid-specs-ab [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Mike Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:06 PM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Roland Hedberg's federation specification
I was reading the meeting notes today, and I want to interject my comments about Roland's OpenID Connect federation proposal.
First of all, my assessment of Roland's draft is that it has significant gaps, and it needs a lot of work.
I'm concerned that the imperatives of the main OpenID Connect group are consumer and enterprise authentication. Because this multi-party federration draft needs so much work, I think it would be better to develop it seperately, and bring it back to the main group when there is consensus on a solution.
There are a lot of interested parties with regard to the development of multi-party federation trust models who could contribute more effectively if the standard was developed under a more targeted working group. For example, as the co-chair of the Kantara OTTO WG, which was formed expressly to address the challenge of federation of Oauth2 entities, I know we have a core group of people who are interested to collaborate.
It would be nice if whatever process takes place at OIDF should be an open, democratic forum, as several of us from OTTO would like to participate.
Founder / CEO
mike at gluu.org
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
More information about the Openid-specs-ab