[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Tatsuki Sakushima
tatsuki at nri.com
Thu Jan 15 08:09:41 UTC 2009
Hello,
David and Mike Jones from the spec council responded for this invitation.
David can join a conference call on the 1) slot, so I'd like schedule
a call on the date below:
Date: Thursday, 15 January 2009 USA
Time: 3:05PM - 4:05AM(PST)
11:05PM on 1/15(GMT)
8:05PM on 1/16(JST)
TO ACCESS THE AUDIO CONFERENCE:
Dial In Number: 1 (605) 475-4333
Access Code: 199834
From the proposers side, I confirmed that Nat, Drummond, John,
and I can join. Unfortunately Mike Graves and Henrik cannot join
because both of them are not available on the 1) slot but on the 2).
Best,
Tatsuki
Tatsuki Sakushima
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
(1/14/09 1:59 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima 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 – 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