[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Nat Sakimura
n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
Mon Jan 19 02:44:52 UTC 2009
What about other people for 21st 15:00 PST?
Tatsuki, could you add that date to the doodle poll as well?
=nat
--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Recordon" <recordond at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:51 PM
To: "Tatsuki Sakushima" <tatsuki at nri.com>
Cc: <specs-council at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
> 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<mailto: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> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>
> <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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20090119/4e24e222/attachment-0002.bin>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list