[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Drummond Reed
drummond.reed at cordance.net
Fri Jan 16 03:03:58 UTC 2009
[resending to the list because I wasn't a member - am now]
-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:55 PM
To: 'Tatsuki Sakushima'; specs-council at openid.net
Cc: David Recordon; John Bradley; hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp; Robert Ott; Michael
Graves; Josh Hoyt; Nat Sakimura; Henrik Biering; Nat Sakimura; 山口徹
Subject: RE: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Specs Council members:
I want to second this request by Tatsuki. There may not have been enough
notice for the first call today, but next week's call is a week away, which
should be sufficient notice for everyone.
Secondly, the proposers took the time on the call today to carefully review
and edit the charter on the wiki to narrow scope as much as possible and
make this a nice tight proposal -- a single spec that will do something
highly useful on top of OpenID AN and AX.
I personally believe it now meets every criteria that the Specs Council is
charged with reviewing. It is of course possible that the final
specification will not receive the endorsement of the OpenID community at
large, and that's fine -- that's the job of a final community vote. But
given the breadth and experience of the proposers of this work, its clear
focus, its composability, and the value this has to the segment of the
community proposing it, I cannot imagine a reason at this point that the
Specs Council would not approve formation of this workgroup.
I also believe it's important for the Specs Council to act in a timely
manner on these requests or else it becomes not just a drag on WG efforts
but a reflection of the inability of the OpenID community to foster and
promote innovation -- not something I think any of us want to see associated
with OpenID.
If you can't make the call next week, please read the updated charter and
post any remaining concerns you may have ASAP so that the proposers have
time to address them. Even better, if you are now satisfied, please post
that view so we can drive to closure next Thursday.
Best,
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatsuki Sakushima [mailto:tatsuki at nri.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:05 PM
> To: specs-council at openid.net
> Cc: David Recordon; John Bradley; hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp; Robert Ott; Michael
> Graves; Josh Hoyt; Nat Sakimura; Drummond Reed; Henrik Biering; Nat
> Sakimura; 山口徹
> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
>
> Dear the Specifications Council members (especially David and Mike) and
> the proposers of the CX WG,
>
> Upon the request by David, I re-schedule this teleconference to the next
> week.
> 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.
>
> I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:
>
> 1) 4:00pm on 1/22(PST)
> 12:00am on 1/22(GMT)
> 9:00am on 1/23(JST)
>
> 2) 2:00pm on 1/23(PST)
> 10:00pm on 1/23(GMT)
> 7:00am on 1/24(JST)
>
> 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
>
> The group of the proposers(Nat, Drummond, John, Henrik and Tatsuki)
> gathered today to
> discuss how to change the charter that does hopefully eliminate the
> concerns mentioned in
> the messages from Mike and David. The updated version is on the same wiki
> page:
>
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1
>
> Please take another look at it before the teleconference and provide us
> feedbacks
> so that we can discuss about the new charter.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about scheduling and so forth, please
> let me know.
>
> Best,
> Tatsuki
>
> Tatsuki Sakushima
> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
>
> (1/15/09 2:50 PM), David Recordon wrote:
> > Hi Tatsuki,
> > I'm really sorry but it turns out that I must have mixed up my days when
> > looking at the times yesterday. I have a two hour meeting at 3pm today.
> >
> > Is it possible to try to plan this call more than a day in advance for
> > next week?
> >
> > Sorry,
> > --David
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki at nri.com
> > <mailto:tatsuki at nri.com>> wrote:
> >
> > 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>
> > <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#cSpecification
> CouncilIssues
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
More information about the specs-council
mailing list