[Openid-specs-risc] Versioning proposal
Atul Tulshibagwale
atul at sgnl.ai
Tue Oct 3 19:27:24 UTC 2023
Hi Mike and Mark,
In today's WG call (which was unfortunately lightly attended), we discussed
a possible new option. We will drop the idea of protocol versioning
altogether, and just refer to the spec version in the transmitter
configuration metadata. We will only refer to Implementer's Drafts or final
specifications in the spec version value. This is captured in the PR here:
https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/125
Please review,
Thanks
Atul
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 8:45 AM Shayne Miel (smiel) <smiel at cisco.com> wrote:
> I can't make the call today, but I have a couple of thoughts about this:
>
> 1. What should we do about features that might be dependent on one
> another? Let's say we move forward with the API style feature (which I
> might call the "multiple streams feature" instead) and then later we make
> further breaking changes to the API. It might be impossible to have that
> new API change feature without also having the multiple streams feature in
> place.
> 2. I think we might have more than those two breaking changes. The
> fact that we removed subject status comes to mind as a third example. Do we
> need to do an audit of the PRs that have been merged since the last draft?
>
> - Shayne
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Openid-specs-risc <openid-specs-risc-bounces at lists.openid.net> on
> behalf of Atul Tulshibagwale via Openid-specs-risc <
> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 2, 2023 7:36 PM
> *To:* Michael Jones <michael_b_jones at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* specs at openid.net <specs at openid.net>; Mark <mark at considrd.consulting>;
> majordan at visa.com <majordan at visa.com>; OpenID RISC List <
> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-risc] Versioning proposal
>
> Hi Mike and Mark,
> Thanks for your time today. Here are my notes from the call:
>
> 1. Mike proposed that we do not actually version the protocol, because
> of two reasons:
> 1. Versions may not be linear. People may add different features
> and may support different features in the future, so a linear version scale
> may not make sense. For instance, the OAuth spec is not versioned, but it
> has many additional features such as PKCE, DPoP, CIBA etc. Participants can
> individually support these features.
> 2. We already have draft numbering, and protocol version numbers
> may be hard to distinguish from that.
> 2. Mike proposed that we add specific feature flags in the Transmitter
> Configuration Metadata. We currently have two things that require
> versioning:
> 1. Sub_id at top level
> 2. API style (previous API has differences with the current API)
> 3. Mark pointed out some parallels (and pitfalls) with other specs
> such as Identity Assurance, where they are using this approach.
>
> This will satisfy our needs and will be a more robust way of supporting
> multiple new things we may decide to add in the spec later.
>
> *Action Items*
>
> 1. Atul to discuss this in the WG meeting tomorrow.
> 2. Atul to update PR based on outcome of WG meeting, but hopefully
> along the above lines. Mike and Mark to review that PR
> 3. The current versioning proposal PR will be dropped.
>
> Please respond if I haven't captured anything correctly or you wish to add
> anything here.
>
> Atul
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:48 AM Atul Tulshibagwale <atul at sgnl.ai> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike and Mark,
> I've updated the versioning proposal to establish how protocol version
> numbers discussed in the document will correlate to the spec version
> numbers defined in the naming document you shared. Please review them here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Atul
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:50 PM Michael Jones <michael_b_jones at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Atul. It seems reasonable.
> However, I’m not totally sure how it relates to published draft filenames
> and the titles and draft numbers within the drafts themselves. Could we
> schedule a half-hour call to dive into this?
>
>
>
> In particular, I’d like to understand how this relates to the
> specification version numbers (such as 1.0) and draft numbers (such as 29)
> as described in the OpenID Foundation specification naming conventions
> described at
> https://openid.net/wg/resources/naming-and-contents-of-specifications/.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Atul Tulshibagwale <atul at sgnl.ai>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2023 6:00 PM
> *To:* Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>
> *Cc:* specs at openid.net; michael_b_jones at hotmail.com; Mark
> <mark at considrd.consulting>; OpenID RISC List <
> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>; Tim Cappalli <
> tim.cappalli at microsoft.com>; Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com>;
> majordan at visa.com
> *Subject:* Re: Versioning proposal
>
>
>
> Thanks Gail,
>
>
>
> Mike and Mark,
>
> You can also review this pull request
> <https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/123>, which has the
> versioning proposal in a Kramdown format. It also uses that versioning
> proposal in the SSF spec.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Atul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:00 AM Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org> wrote:
>
> Atul
>
>
>
> Many thanks for sharing! Glad you are at a stage to dive deeper into the
> mechanics of versioning.
>
>
>
> *Mike Jones, Mark H*
>
>
>
> Can you please kindly review and revert to Atuil and the Shared Signals
> WG?
>
>
>
> I am conscious that there has been considerable work by the two of you and
> others in order to:
>
> - Document the current specification processes
> - Document the unwritten best practices
> - Create tools to automate those processes, and pilot the automation
> tools with the DCP WG
> - Close gaps in the Process Document via discrete changes, which the
> Process Subgroup of the Board will present to Board prior to vote by the
> full membership.
>
>
>
> Marie- As Secretary, FYI
>
>
>
> Gail
>
>
>
> *From: *Atul Tulshibagwale <atul at sgnl.ai>
> *Date: *Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:55 PM
> *To: *specs at openid.net <specs at openid.net>
> *Cc: *Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>, OpenID RISC List <
> openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>, Tim Cappalli <
> tim.cappalli at microsoft.com>, Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com>
> *Subject: *Versioning proposal
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the Shared Signals WG, we recently agreed to this versioning proposal.
>
>
>
> * Shared Signals Versioning Proposal
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>*
>
>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> I'm not sure if the OpenID Foundation has anything it uses across all WGs
> regarding versioning. Could you please review the versioning proposal and
> let us know if anything needs to be changed?
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Thanks,
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Atul
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Co-chair, Shared Signals WG
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20231003/3ab715b4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-risc
mailing list