[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Tatsuki Sakushima
tatsuki at nri.com
Wed Jan 14 21:59:18 UTC 2009
Dear all,
> I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:
>
> 1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)
> 10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)
> 7:00am on 1/16(JST)
On Thursday, there is a XRI TC telecon that many of us join. Therefore,
I suggested a hour moved back on 1). The new schedule is below:
1) 3:00pm on 1/15(PST)
11:00pm on 1/15(GMT)
8:00am on 1/16(JST)
Sorry for members in Europe. I might be hard to join it at this hour.
Best,
Tatsuki
Tatsuki Sakushima
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
TEL:(650)638-7258
SkypeIn:(650)209-4811
(1/14/09 1:45 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:
> (The options of the schedules have the same number. I send the
> collection and please discard the previous one.)
>
> Dear the Specifications Council members (especially David and Mike) and
> the proposers of the CX WG,
>
> Upon the request of scheduling a call by Nat, I'd like to invite all the
> members of the spec council and the CX WG proposers to a teleconference
> to discuss how to solve the charter clarification and scope concerns
> pointed out by the spec council.
>
> I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:
>
> 1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)
> 10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)
> 7:00am on 1/16(JST)
>
> 2) 2:00pm on 1/16(PST)
> 10:00pm on 1/16(GMT)
> 7:00am on 1/17(JST)
>
> Please reply this message and specify the option that you prefer. Based
> on replies from all participants who intend to join, I'll set up a
> conference bridge and email them the information.
>
> In the OIDFSC mailing list, David already stated and explained concerns
> about the previous charter submitted by Nat:
>
> http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000045.html
> http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000046.html
> http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000027.html
>
> I think that the goal of this telecon is:
>
> a) For the proposers to clarify points of concerns raised by the council
> and explain intentions of the WG.
> b) For the spec council to provide concrete suggestions to make the
> charter comfortable and reasonable to the spec council and the community .
>
> If you have any comments or concerns on this message, please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Tatsuki
>
> Tatsuki Sakushima
> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
>
> (1/13/09 12:15 AM), Nat Sakimura 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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>,
>> 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
>> <mailto:recordond at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:33 AM
>> *To:* Nat Sakimura
>> *Cc:* specs-council at openid.net <mailto:specs-council at openid.net>;
>> Josh Hoyt; Tatsuki Sakushima; John Bradley; hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:josh at janrain.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones
>>
>> <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com <mailto: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/
>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list