[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

David Recordon recordond at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 16:51:54 UTC 2009


Thanks, talk to you at 3pm Pacific.

--David

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki at nri.com> wrote:

> Members of the Spec Council and the CX WG Proposers,
>
> Since two members(David and Allen) from the Spec Council are available on
> 21st tomorrow,
> I'd like to schedule a telcon on 3pm 1/21. (Some of us have an ORMS telecon
> from 2pm, I'll make it start 5 mins passed 3pm.)
>
>
> Here is the access information for the conference bridge tomorrow:
>
> Date:  Thursday, 15 January 2009 USA
> Time:  3:05PM - 4:05AM(PST)
> (This is PST. Please see the time at your time zone at Doodle.)
> TO ACCESS THE AUDIO CONFERENCE:
>    Dial In Number: 1 (605) 475-4333
>    Access Code: 199834
>
> For the proposers,
>
> Even though you don't update your schedule yet, please feel free to join
> the meeting.
>
> Best,
> Tatsuki
>
> Tatsuki Sakushima
> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
>
>
> (1/20/09 2:14 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:
>
>> Thank you, David.
>>
>> To the proposers,
>>
>> Please update your availability on 3pm of 21st as well.
>>
>> 1. Go to http://www.doodle.com/rat2s87iyeqxd79z
>> 2. Click "Edit an entry"
>> 3. Click a little icon right next to your name
>> 4. Apply the change
>>
>> I'd like to close this poll by the 9pm on PST today and send the
>> conference bridge information to participants.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Tatsuki Sakushima
>> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
>> TEL:(650)638-7258
>> SkypeIn:(650)209-4811
>>
>> (1/20/09 12:59 PM), David Recordon wrote:
>>
>>> 3pm Pacific works for me on the 21st. I'll update my Doodle response.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Sent from my iPhone Classic.
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Tatsuki Sakushima <tatsuki at nri.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I temporarily add 3:00pm of 21st. When Mike or David suggest the time
>>>> good for them,
>>>> I'll update it.
>>>>
>>>> Tatsuki
>>>>
>>>> Tatsuki Sakushima
>>>> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> (1/19/09 5:30 PM), Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What time woud be good then?
>>>>>
>>>>> =nat
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Mike Jones <
>>>>> Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
>>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>>   [mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto:specs-council-
>>>>>   <mailto:specs-council->
>>>>>
>>>>>> bounces at openid.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>
>>>>>   <mailto:recordond at gmail.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:51 PM
>>>>>> To: "Tatsuki Sakushima" <tatsuki at nri.com <mailto:tatsuki at nri.com>>
>>>>>> Cc: <specs-council at openid.net <mailto: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><mailto: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>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto: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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>   <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- <mailto:hdknr at ic->
>>>>>
>>>>>> tact.co.jp <http://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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>   <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- <mailto:n->
>>>>>
>>>>>> sakimura at nri.co.jp <mailto: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- <mailto:n->
>>>>>
>>>>>> sakimura at nri.co.jp <mailto:sakimura at nri.co.jp>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             <mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp><mailto:n- <mailto:n->
>>>>>
>>>>>> sakimura at nri.co.jp <mailto: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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>                <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- <mailto:specs->
>>>>>
>>>>>> council at openid.net <mailto:council at openid.net>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             <mailto:specs-council at openid.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:specs-council at openid.net><mailto:specs- <mailto:specs->
>>>>>
>>>>>> council at openid.net <mailto:council at openid.net>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             <mailto:specs-council at openid.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:specs-council at openid.net><mailto:specs- <mailto:specs->
>>>>>
>>>>>> council at openid.net <mailto:council at openid.net>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             <mailto:specs-council at openid.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   <mailto:specs-council at openid.net><mailto:specs- <mailto:specs->
>>>>>
>>>>>> council at openid.net <mailto: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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>                <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>                <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>                <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
>>>>>   <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>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  <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
>>>>>   <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/
>>>>>
>>>> d 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/20090121/454c248b/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the specs-council mailing list