[OIDFSC] [VOTE] Contract Exchange Working Group Proposal
Allen Tom
atom at yahoo-inc.com
Sun Feb 1 17:42:10 UTC 2009
Hi Nat,
Please be sure to clearly define the term "Contract" in the spec, and it
would be good to describe some usecases either in the appendix or have
the spec link to a separate document with some usecases. One of the
reasons why the specs committee took so long to vote on the CX proposal
is because of a general lack of understanding as to what CX is supposed
to do.
Allen
Nat Sakimura wrote:
> Wow, Brad, it has been such a long time since I have seen you on the
> list!
>
> By the way, it is "contract" and not "contact".
>
> "contract" by the way, usually is mutual agreement between parties. In
> many jurisdictions it does not have to be written down at all to be a
> valid contract. However, we usually write down the contract "just in
> case" when we have to bring it to the court. To prepare for such
> circumstances, we usually have the following items in a contract.
> (Note: not all contact have all the items below, but I consider it is
> generally a good practice to have them. At least, my legal department
> would not accept one if any of them is missing.)
>
> 1. Identifier of the parties involved. (Usually, registered name and
> address.)
> 2. General purpose of the agreement. ("Preemable").
> 3. Business Term that the parties agreed to.
> 4. Expiration Date and Renewal method (if relevant).
> 5. Termination Clause.
> 6. Non disclosure
> 7. Indemnity liability, Remedies to damage
> 8. Jurisdiction
> 9. Dispute resolution point
> 10. Date
> 11. Credential
>
> Credential, in case of paper contract, usually is signature in the
> Western world. In Asia, it usually is a registered seal. What makes
> them a valid credential depends on the relevant laws and judicial
> precedents.
>
> From the point of the workflow, as it is depicted in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract, it is composed of offer and
> acceptance. My idea is to use OpenID protocols to make an offer
> including 1 to 10 and 11 of the offering party, and if the offered
> party accepts it, returns the acceptance with his portion of 11. This
> is just my idea, and the details is needed to be discussed inside the WG.
>
> Cheers,
>
> =nat
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick <brad at danga.com
> <mailto:brad at danga.com>> wrote:
>
> Can I vote neutral? While I'm very much +1 on the previously
> discussed OpenID/OAuth hybrid proposal, this one's more "meh" to
> me. I'm not against it, though. Its charter page doesn't even
> explain use cases or what a "contact" is (though I was amused to
> see it put in quotes and then later never explained.)
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:09 AM, David Recordon
> <recordond at gmail.com <mailto:recordond at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Since we've had so many different threads on this proposal,
> I'd like
> to have one final thread where there is a clear vote held on the
> latest revision of the proposal. The proposal can be found at
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1
> and in the
> email below. If you're a member of the Specs Council, please
> respond
> ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> (i) WG name
> Contract Exchange Extension Working Group
>
> (ii) Purpose
> The purpose of this WG is to produce a standard OpenID
> extension to
> the OpenID Authentication protocol that enables arbitrary
> parties to
> create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed "contract". This
> contract can be both broadband and mobile friendly through
> appropriate
> bindings that will be defined for each use case.
>
> (iii) Scope
> Development of a specification that allows parties to exchange a
> mutually-digitally-signed contract leveraging on OpenID
> Authentication
> 2.0 and OpenID Attribute Exchange 2.0 via the appropriate bindings
> defined in the specification.
>
> Out of scope
>
> * UI and user experience: The Working Group will develop
> the wire
> protocol and and any related processing mechanisms required to
> support
> it but user interface and experience is out of scope.
> * Public Key Discovery method: This functionality will be
> either
> defined in the XRD 1.0 specification currently in progress at the
> OASIS XRI TC or a mechanism that works with OpenID Authentication
> 2.0/2.1 discovery will be defined independently.
> * Terms negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a
> contract
> should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications.
> * Assurance: These will be handled by third-party assurance
> programs or other identity governance frameworks.
> * Trust hierarchies. It is the intent that this
> specification be
> usable by any trust community, whether it uses conventional PKI
> hierarchies, peer-to-peer trust mechanisms, reputation systems, or
> other forms of trust assurance. The specification of any
> particular
> trust root, trust hierarchy, or trust policy is explicitly out of
> scope.
>
> (iv) Proposed List of Specifications
> * Contract Exchange 1.0 - Expected completion of the first
> iteration is in Q1 2009.
>
> (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work
> Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties,
> especially those
> who require security and accountability features to exchange
> sensitive
> customer information (e.g. personally identifiable information and
> credit card numbers) responsibly among trusted parties.
>
> (vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business
> English.
>
> (vii) Method of work
> E-mail discussions on the working group mailing list, working
> group
> conference calls, and possibly face-to-face meetings at
> conferences.
>
> (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed
> Drafts will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or
> decrease consensus within the working group. The work will be
> completed once it is apparent that maximal consensus on the
> drafts has
> been achieved, consistent with the purpose and scope.
>
> (b) Background Information.
> (i) Related work being done by other WGs or organizations
> * OpenID Authentication 2.1 [AN]
> * OpenID Attribute Exchange Extension 2.0 [AX]
> * LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework [IGF] 1.0
> Draft
> * XML Advanced Electronic Signatures [XAdES]
> * WS-Trust 1.3 [WS-trust]
> * XRI 2.0 and XRI 3.0 [XRI]
> * XRD 1.0 [XRI]
> * XDI 1.0 [XDI]
> * Vendor Relationship Management [VRM]
>
> (ii) Proposers
> * Drummond Reed, =drummond, drummond.reed at parity.com
> <mailto:drummond.reed at parity.com>,
> Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)
> * Henrik Biering, hb at netamia.com <mailto:hb at netamia.com>,
> Netamia (Denmark)
> * Hideki Nara, hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp
> <mailto:hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp>, Tact Communications (Japan)
> * John Bradeley, jbradley at mac.com
> <mailto:jbradley at mac.com>, OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)
> * Mike Graves, mgraves at janrain.com
> <mailto:mgraves at janrain.com>, JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
> * Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
> <mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>, Nomura Research Institute,
> Ltd.(Japan)
> * Robert Ott, robert.ott at clavid.com
> <mailto:robert.ott at clavid.com>, Clavid (Switzerland)
> * Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at nri.com
> <mailto:tatsuki at nri.com>, NRI America, Inc. (U.S.A.)
> * Toru Yamaguchi, trymch at gmail.com
> <mailto:trymch at gmail.com>, DeNA Co. Ltd. (Japan)
>
> Editors:
> Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
> <mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>, Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
>
> (iii) Anticipated Contributions
> * Sakimura, N., et. al "OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention
> Specification (draft)", Oct. 2008. [TX2008].
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20090201/1c420885/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list