[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Mike Jones
Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Mon Jan 19 20:45:09 UTC 2009
I could do some other times that day but not that hour.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: specs-council-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-council-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:43 PM
To: 'Nat Sakimura'; 'David Recordon'; 'Tatsuki Sakushima'
Cc: specs-council at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Right now I could do the 21st at 15:00PST.
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-council-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-council-
> bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:45 PM
> To: David Recordon; Tatsuki Sakushima
> Cc: specs-council at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
>
> 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#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>>
> > <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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
More information about the specs-council
mailing list