[Specs-cx] Discussion note on Contract eXchange Requirement

[Tatsuki Sakushima]

Hi Nat,

I read the document. Here is my comments:

-This contract data may be out of scope but could be in the spec
since this spec defines "Contract Exchange".
-Contract data could be big, therefore it should not be transmitted
in a indirect communication channel. It should be always in a direct
communication. The key to reference the data should be transmitted
either direct or indirect communication. The key MUST be small enough
for mobile phones to exchange in a protocol.
-Contract data can be written in many forms(XML preferred?). It should be extensible
(flexible) and detachable from a protocol.
(Replacing it has no effect on protocol part.)
-The format of parameters in protocol is still "key-value" pairs.
The reference key for contract data is one of parameters in a protocol.
-Authentication in 4 legs model and Notification is tricky. The flow should be clearly defined.
-I am still not sure how AX can carry site(server) attributes seemed to
be required in this spec. This could be a issue. However, reusing existing
specs/protocols is a good thing.

I hope this would help. Should we start discussion about the spec based on this document? Please let us know how you like to proceed.

Tatsuki 

Tatsuki Sakushima
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.


(7/30/09 4:53 AM), Nat Sakimura wrote:
> Hi All:
> 
> To explain the concept of CX better, and by doing so, making my 
> understanding clearer, I wrote a discussion note to set a level ground 
> on the discussion.
> 
> Please have a look.
> 
> Hopefully, it is pretty clear.
> 
> Caveat: It is the dump of my thinking as of today, and no proof reading 
> has been done.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> =nat
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Specs-cx mailing list
> Specs-cx at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx