[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Mike Jones
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Jan 15 02:34:20 UTC 2009
I can’t make either of these times but there are 6 other specs council members. The rest of you should proceed without me.
-- Mike
From: specs-council-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-council-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of David Recordon
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:32 PM
To: Tatsuki Sakushima
Cc: specs-council at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
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<mailto: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<mailto: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> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto:robert.ott at clavid.com<mailto:robert.ott at clavid.com>>, Clavid (Switzerland)
* Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at nri.com<mailto:tatsuki at nri.com> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
<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> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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> <mailto: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/20090114/66c92dff/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list