[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
Nat Sakimura
sakimura at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 01:30:22 UTC 2009
What time woud be good then?
=nat
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:
> 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
--
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/20090120/583a50aa/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list