[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
David Recordon
recordond at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 01:31:30 UTC 2009
The 1/15 slot works for me and am fully booked on 1/16 from 2pm PST on.
--David
2009/1/14 Michael Graves <mgraves at janrain.com>
> Option 2) is good for me. I'm on an airplane most of 1/15, and won't be
> able to make 1), even if moved back or forward a bit.
> -Mike
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki at nri.com>wrote:
>
>> 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 ¨C 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; ɽ¿ÚØ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>>> ¡ì4.1);
>>>> (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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20090114/935e2a40/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list