[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
David Recordon
recordond at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 06:51:30 UTC 2009
Thanks, though neither of those times work for me unfortunately but any time
the 21st should.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki at nri.com> wrote:
> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20090115/1f15241e/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list