Proposal to create the TX working group
David Recordon
drecordon at sixapart.com
Fri Oct 31 15:34:40 PDT 2008
Hey Nat,
Do you see this as being built atop Attribute Exchange for transport
or as something new that TX defines? I know Sxip had done work with
AX to enable passing signed and encrypted attributes using SAML
assertions.
Is "Trust Exchange" really the best name? Seems like "trust" is quite
a broad concept so something more specific might be better.
--David
On Oct 31, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> Dear Specification Council members:
>
> In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures
> this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to
> produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the
> Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are:
>
> Trust Exchange (TX) Extension WG Charter
>
> In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures
> this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to
> produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the
> Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are:
>
>
> Proposal:
>
> (a) Charter.
>
> (i) WG name: Trust Exchange Extension (TX)
>
> (ii) Purpose: The purpose of this WG is to produce a standard
> OpenID extension to the OpenID Authentication protocol that enables
> arbitrary parties to create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed
> legally binding "contract". This protocol extension aims to be both
> broadband and mobile friendly by defining appropriate bindings for
> each use case.
>
> Although this specification defines one default protocol for
> transfering data based on the contract, the data transfer portion is
> intended to be pluggable so that other protocols may also be used
> for this purpose.
>
> The extension is not intended to be a general method for defining
> attributes; the scope is limited to a specific set of attributes
> necessary for contract semantics. The extension will also define a
> contract signature based on public key cryptography. When used with
> a digital certificate signed by a third party, the contract and
> signature can be used as an assertion of conformance to an
> applicable assurance program.
>
> (iii) Scope:
>
> Scope of the work
>
> Development of the specification including:
> An extensible tag-value contract format
> Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method applied to
> the above contract format
> Query/response communication protocols for establishing the contract
> Default data transfer protocol based on the contract
> Conformance requirements for other data transfer protocol bindings
> Security, threats and Risk analysis
> Perform Security Risk analysis and profiles for best practice
> Out of scope
>
> Term negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a contract
> should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications.
> General purpose data type identifiers: this should be determined on
> a per-community bases using other specifications such as OpenID
> Attribute Exchange.
> Assurance programs or other identity governance frameworks.
> It is the intent that this specification be usable by any trust
> community, whether it uses conventional PKI hierarchies, peer-to-
> peer trust mechanisms, reputation systems, or other forms of trust
> assurance. The specification of any particular trust root, trust
> hierarchy, or trust policy is explicitly out of scope.
>
> (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: TX 1.0, spec completion
> expected in January 2009.
>
> (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers of
> OpenID Providers and Relying Parties, especially those who require
> security and accountability features to exchange sensitive customer
> information (e.g. personally identifiable information and credit
> card numbers) responsibly among trusted parties.
>
> (vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business: English.
>
> (vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on the working group
> mailing list, working group conference calls, and possibly face-to-
> face meetings at conferences.
>
> (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is
> completed: Draft 1 will be evaluated on the basis of whether they
> increase or decrease consensus within the working group. The work
> will be completed once it is apparent that maximal consensus on the
> draft has been achieved, consistent with the purpose and scope.
>
> (b) Background Information.
>
> (i) Related work being done by other WGs or organizations:
>
> LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework (IGF) 1.0 Draft
> XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES)
>
> (ii) Proposers:
>
> Drummond Reed, drummond.reed at parity.com, Cordance/Parity/OASIS
> (U.S.A)
> Henrik Biering, hb at netamia.com, Netamia (Denmark)
> Hideki Nara, hdknr at ic-tact.co.jp, Tact Communications (Japan)
> John Bradeley, jbradley at mac.com, OASIS IDTrust Member Section
> (Canada)
> Mike Graves, mgraves at janrain.com, JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
> Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp, Nomura Research Institute,
> Ltd.(Japan)
> Robert Ott, robert.ott at clavid.com, Clavid (Switzerland)
> Tatsuki Sakushima, tatsuki at nri.com, NRI America, Ltd. (U.S.A.)
> Toru Yamaguchi, trymch at gmail.com, Cyboze Lab (Japan)
>
>
> Editors:
>
> Nat Sakimura, n-sakimura at nri.co.jp, Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
>
> (iii) Anticipated Contributions:
> (1) Sakimura, N., et. al "OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention
> Specification (draft)", Oct. 2008. [TX2008].
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/attachments/20081031/e1f0943b/attachment.htm
More information about the specs
mailing list