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

Tue Jan 13 09:09:15 UTC 2009

OK. I will ping the spec list.

=nat

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:51 PM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, and a call would be a good thing.  I'd also like to continue this
> discussion on the specs at openid.net mailing list for a larger technical
> audience to participate in the review and refinement of the proposal since
> there doesn't yet seem to be consensus around this work.
>
> --David
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>
>

-- 
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/20090113/8ac6e0eb/attachment-0002.htm>