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

Tue Jan 13 08:44:36 UTC 2009

Since it is easy to go back in versions (thanks to the wiki!), I have
created stripped down version of the proposal.

http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1

Please have a look.

=nat

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>

-- 
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/20090113/4539d9e4/attachment-0002.htm>