[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Tatsuki Sakushima
tatsuki at nri.com
Fri Jan 16 06:36:30 UTC 2009
Hi all,
As many of you suggested using Doodle.com, I created the event there:
http://www.doodle.com/rat2s87iyeqxd79z
Please update your schedule there.
Thank you,
Tatsuki
Tatsuki Sakushima
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
(1/15/09 5:04 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:
> 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#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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list