[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

Tue Jan 13 08:15:34 UTC 2009

Tatsuki,

Could you kindly set-up a followup call, please?

In the mean time though, I would like to ask spec council members for the
response towards the answers given by the proposers to your concerns. Any
concrete suggestion to make it acceptable to the spec council is also
welcome. It's a wiki, after all.

As to the "community support", it would probably depend on what "community".

The proposers are probably talking of higher value transaction users, and if
we do it in timely manner, I am pretty confident that it will have some
traction, but it needs to happen fast. If we take too much time, the
opportunity will go away from OpenID.

=nat

2009/1/1 Drummond Reed <Drummond.Reed at parityinc.net>

>  David,
>
>
>
> First, I agree with Henrik's comments (see his separate email). Second, to
> say, "I do not believe that it currently has sufficient support within the
> OpenID community to succeed", did you see the list of proposers for this
> workgroup?
>
>    - Drummond Reed, drummond.reed at parity.com, Cordance/Parity/OASIS
>    (U.S.A)
>    - Henrik Biering, hb at netamia.com, Netamia (Denmark)
>    - Hideki Nara, hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp, Tact Communications (Japan)
>    - John Bradeley, jbradley at mac.com, OASIS IDTrust Member Section
>    (Canada)
>    - Mike Graves, mgraves at janrain.com, JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
>    - Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp, Nomura Research Institute,
>    Ltd.(Japan)
>    - Robert Ott, robert.ott at clavid.com, Clavid (Switzerland)
>    - Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at nri.com, NRI America, Inc. (U.S.A.)
>    - Toru Yamaguchi, trymch at gmail.com, Cybozu Labs (Japan)
>
> In short, my first reaction to reading your email was to think, "Wow, here
> it is, the first example of OpenID turning into W3C and IETF and every other
> standards organization that turns into a small group of insiders trying to
> control innovation!"
>
>
>
> Of course I think you, more than almost anyone, can appreciate the irony of
> that thought - I believe it was to avoid that very situation that the OIDF
> was created, no?
>
>
>
> So if we DON'T want that to happen, I think what we need to do ASAP is turn
> this into a constructive dialog between the proposers of this Working Group
> and the Specs Council about how the charter might be amended to addess some
> of your concerns. (I'm not commenting yet on your specific concerns, other
> than to say that I agree with some and not with others.)
>
>
>
> I suspect email is going to be much too slow for such a dialog, so I would
> suggest that Nat and Tatksuki set up a telecon between the Working Group
> proposers and the Specs Council members. I would also suggest that before
> such a telecon, the Specs Council get together and collectively list their
> issues with the Charter on the Working Group Charter page. I have added a
> section for this purpose:
>
>
>
>
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1#cSpecificationCouncilIssues
>
>
>
> It may be that all the Specs Council members agree with your four points
> below, in which case you can just wholesale copy them into the wiki page.
> However it is very important that the Specs Council come to it's own
> consensus about the issues it has with the charter, because without that,
> the WG proposers have no hope of addressing these issues, either with
> counterarguments or with potential amendments.
>
>
>
> Listing the issues there also enables us to have a more focused discussion
> than email alone by using comments directly on the wiki page.
>
>
>
> =Drummond
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Recordon [mailto:recordond at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:33 AM
> *To:* Nat Sakimura
> *Cc:* specs-council at openid.net; Josh Hoyt; Tatsuki Sakushima; John
> Bradley; hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp; Robert Ott; Michael Graves; Henrik Biering;
> Drummond Reed; Nat Sakimura; 山口徹
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
>
>
>
> Hi Nat,
>
> I read Josh's email as agreeing with Mike's statement of:
>
> The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this
> proposal to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad,
> it seems to propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create
> new ways to do accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it
> the proposal is not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing
> mechanisms such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires
> breaking changes to these underlying protocols.
>
>
> While you have clarified that you don't intend to create a new XML
> signature mechanism, OAuth describes a mechanism to use public keys to sign
> these sorts of parameters.  Signatures aside, as Mike said other aspects of
> the charter seem quite broad and it is unclear how it will build upon AX 1.0
> and other underlying existing OpenID technologies.
>
> Given the draft charter at
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1:
> 1) The purpose of producing a series of extensions seems too broad.  OpenID
> was born on the idea of doing one simple thing and we've seen success with
> OpenID and related technologies when they are made up of small pieces
> loosely joined.  OpenID Authentication 2.0 broke this rule in some areas and
> we're now seeing the repercussions of doing so.
>
> 2) In what jurisdictions are these contracts legally binding?  Is
> "arbitrary parties to create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed
> legally binding 'contract'" a justifiable statement or should it be toned
> down?  It should also be kept in mind that since OpenID's creation it has
> been very clear that OpenID does not provide trust, but rather trust can be
> built on top of identity.  I'm not saying that OpenID should never deal with
> trust, just trying to understand if this Working Group intends to change how
> OpenID currently does not create this form of trust.
>
> 3) The purpose says that the Working Group intends to possibly extend AX
> and create a series of specifications.  It does not seem prudent to give a
> Working Group the ability to arbitrarily extend an existing extension or
> create an unlimited number of specifications.
>
> 4) The Scope section is still not clear as to what the Working Group will
> actually be producing.  I would prefer to see the section rewritten, maybe
> mimicking the structure currently being considered for the specification.
>
> As to if you wish to force this proposal forward, I do not believe that it
> currently has sufficient support within the OpenID community to succeed and
> that its broad scope contravenes the community's purpose.  This is why I'm
> really hoping that the proposal can be refined to something which will be
> successful that a broad community can get behind!
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Josh,
>
>
>
> To which statement did you agree?
>
>
>
> There has been a several things that has been pointed out, but I think I
> have answered to them.
>
>
>
> For example, for XML Sig, I have stated that this spec is not for XML,
> etc.
>
> For modularization, yes, that is a possibility but a scope needs to be able
> to cover a field that it requires, even if it ends up not covering that
> field.
>
> It is impossible to widen the scope though narrowing it down at a later
> date is easy.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I have not heard back any concrete response for amendments.
> It would be more constructive to have those.
>
>
>
> Also, if you are giving advise to the membership an recommendation for not
> approving it, you need to state the reasons concretely.
>
>
>
> It needs to be one of
>
>
>
> (a)    an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §4.1);
> (b)    a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's
> purpose;
> (c)    a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient
> support to succeed
>
>          or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion
> dates; or
> (d)    a  determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal
> liability for the OIDF or others.
>
>
>
> and should state why the proposal falls into one of the criteria concretely
> and accountably.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> =nat
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Josh Hoyt <josh at janrain.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones
>
> <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > I realize it was Christmas week but it's been a week and we've heard
> nothing
> > from any of the other specs council members on this proposal (or the
> other
> > one as well).
>
> I agree with the statement that you made about this proposal.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>    --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
>
>

-- 
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/20090113/b96fb468/attachment-0002.htm>