<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Nat,<br>
<br>
Please be sure to clearly define the term "Contract" in the spec, and
it would be good to describe some usecases either in the appendix or
have the spec link to a separate document with some usecases. One of
the reasons why the specs committee took so long to vote on the CX
proposal is because of a general lack of understanding as to what CX is
supposed to do.<br>
<br>
Allen<br>
<br>
<br>
Nat Sakimura wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:bf26e2340901302132r6cc30d21pef1d11aadd55226f@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Wow, Brad, it has been such a long time since I have seen
you on the list!<br>
<br>
By the way, it is "contract" and not "contact". <br>
<br>
"contract" by the way, usually is mutual agreement between parties. In
many jurisdictions it does not have to be written down at all to be a
valid contract. However, we usually write down the contract "just in
case" when we have to bring it to the court. To prepare for such
circumstances, we usually have the following items in a contract.
(Note: not all contact have all the items below, but I consider it is
generally a good practice to have them. At least, my legal department
would not accept one if any of them is missing.) <br>
<br>
1. Identifier of the parties involved. (Usually, registered name and
address.)<br>
2. General purpose of the agreement. ("Preemable"). <br>
3. Business Term that the parties agreed to. <br>
4. Expiration Date and Renewal method (if relevant). <br>
5. Termination Clause. <br>
6. <span class="wordlink">Non disclosure<br>
7. </span><span class="wordlink">Indemnity liability</span>, Remedies
to damage<br>
8. Jurisdiction<br>
9. Dispute resolution point<br>
10. Date<br>
11. Credential<br>
<br>
Credential, in case of paper contract, usually is signature in the
Western world. In Asia, it usually is a registered seal. What makes
them a valid credential depends on the relevant laws and <span
class="wordlink">judicial</span> <span class="wordlink">precedents. </span><br>
<br>
>From the point of the workflow, as it is depicted in <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract</a>,
it is composed of offer and acceptance. My idea is to use OpenID
protocols to make an offer including 1 to 10 and 11 of the offering
party, and if the offered party accepts it, returns the acceptance with
his portion of 11. This is just my idea, and the details is needed to
be discussed inside the WG. <br>
<br>
Cheers, <br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Brad
Fitzpatrick <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:brad@danga.com">brad@danga.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Can
I vote neutral? While I'm very much +1 on the previously discussed
OpenID/OAuth hybrid proposal, this one's more "meh" to me. I'm not
against it, though. Its charter page doesn't even explain use cases or
what a "contact" is (though I was amused to see it put in quotes and
then later never explained.)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:09 AM, David
Recordon <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com" target="_blank">recordond@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="Wj3C7c">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Since
we've had so many different threads on this proposal, I'd like<br>
to have one final thread where there is a clear vote held on the<br>
latest revision of the proposal. The proposal can be found at<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>
and in the<br>
email below. If you're a member of the Specs Council, please respond<br>
ASAP.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
--David<br>
<br>
(i) WG name<br>
Contract Exchange Extension Working Group<br>
<br>
(ii) Purpose<br>
The purpose of this WG is to produce a standard OpenID extension to<br>
the OpenID Authentication protocol that enables arbitrary parties to<br>
create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed "contract". This<br>
contract can be both broadband and mobile friendly through appropriate<br>
bindings that will be defined for each use case.<br>
<br>
(iii) Scope<br>
Development of a specification that allows parties to exchange a<br>
mutually-digitally-signed contract leveraging on OpenID Authentication<br>
2.0 and OpenID Attribute Exchange 2.0 via the appropriate bindings<br>
defined in the specification.<br>
<br>
Out of scope<br>
<br>
* UI and user experience: The Working Group will develop the wire<br>
protocol and and any related processing mechanisms required to support<br>
it but user interface and experience is out of scope.<br>
* Public Key Discovery method: This functionality will be either<br>
defined in the XRD 1.0 specification currently in progress at the<br>
OASIS XRI TC or a mechanism that works with OpenID Authentication<br>
2.0/2.1 discovery will be defined independently.<br>
* Terms negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a contract<br>
should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications.<br>
* Assurance: These will be handled by third-party assurance<br>
programs or other identity governance frameworks.<br>
* Trust hierarchies. It is the intent that this specification be<br>
usable by any trust community, whether it uses conventional PKI<br>
hierarchies, peer-to-peer trust mechanisms, reputation systems, or<br>
other forms of trust assurance. The specification of any particular<br>
trust root, trust hierarchy, or trust policy is explicitly out of<br>
scope.<br>
<br>
(iv) Proposed List of Specifications<br>
* Contract Exchange 1.0 - Expected completion of the first<br>
iteration is in Q1 2009.<br>
<br>
(v) Anticipated audience or users of the work<br>
Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties, especially those<br>
who require security and accountability features to exchange sensitive<br>
customer information (e.g. personally identifiable information and<br>
credit card numbers) responsibly among trusted parties.<br>
<br>
(vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business<br>
English.<br>
<br>
(vii) Method of work<br>
E-mail discussions on the working group mailing list, working group<br>
conference calls, and possibly face-to-face meetings at conferences.<br>
<br>
(viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed<br>
Drafts will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or<br>
decrease consensus within the working group. The work will be<br>
completed once it is apparent that maximal consensus on the drafts has<br>
been achieved, consistent with the purpose and scope.<br>
<br>
(b) Background Information.<br>
(i) Related work being done by other WGs or organizations<br>
* OpenID Authentication 2.1 [AN]<br>
* OpenID Attribute Exchange Extension 2.0 [AX]<br>
* LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework [IGF] 1.0 Draft<br>
* XML Advanced Electronic Signatures [XAdES]<br>
* WS-Trust 1.3 [WS-trust]<br>
* XRI 2.0 and XRI 3.0 [XRI]<br>
* XRD 1.0 [XRI]<br>
* XDI 1.0 [XDI]<br>
* Vendor Relationship Management [VRM]<br>
<br>
(ii) Proposers<br>
* Drummond Reed, =drummond, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com" target="_blank">drummond.reed@parity.com</a>,<br>
Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)<br>
* Henrik Biering, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:hb@netamia.com" target="_blank">hb@netamia.com</a>,
Netamia (Denmark)<br>
* Hideki Nara, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp" target="_blank">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>,
Tact Communications (Japan)<br>
* John Bradeley, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com" target="_blank">jbradley@mac.com</a>,
OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)<br>
* Mike Graves, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com" target="_blank">mgraves@janrain.com</a>,
JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
* Nat Sakimura, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp" target="_blank">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>,
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.(Japan)<br>
* Robert Ott, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com" target="_blank">robert.ott@clavid.com</a>,
Clavid (Switzerland)<br>
* Tatsuki Sakushima, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com" target="_blank">tatsuki@nri.com</a>, NRI
America, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
* Toru Yamaguchi, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com" target="_blank">trymch@gmail.com</a>,
DeNA Co. Ltd. (Japan)<br>
<br>
Editors:<br>
Nat Sakimura, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp" target="_blank">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>,
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.<br>
<br>
(iii) Anticipated Contributions<br>
* Sakimura, N., et. al "OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention<br>
Specification (draft)", Oct. 2008. [TX2008].<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>