Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal

[Dick Hardt]

I'd prefer to narrow the scope of the WG and keep it focussed on a  
small number of goals.

A separate WG on SREG would be preferred, but I think it is a  
disservice to the community to have two specs having such significant  
overlap.
Choice in this case leads to confusion and reluctance to invest. The  
challenge is that those with an investment in SREG now have a  
propensity to see it continue on even though intellectually they can  
see the advantage of a unified spec.

fwiw: I am in an off-site most of this week and won't be able to  
engage significantly until next week.

-- Dick

On 26-Jan-09, at 9:34 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:

> Let's please maintain the discussion on this thread on definition of
> the scope of the WG. Once the WG is formed, the technical aspects can
> be discussed there.
>
> The only pertinent issue that is left open in this regard appears to
> be whether or not SREG will be inspected as part of this. Allen,
> please edit the WG proposal charter to include it.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Raghu Nallani Chakravartula
> <raghu at producthorizons.com> wrote:
>> Futher, the verification information cannot sometimes be expressed  
>> in a
>> single type.
>> It may need to be qualified with additional information as regards  
>> who
>> verified it, when, how long is the verification valid etc...
>>
>> I am guessing validation data exchange will need to grow into a  
>> struct
>> exchange.
>>
>> -Raghu
>>
>> Paul Madsen wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, the separate 'verified' field is the approach the Infocard  
>>> community
>>> took
>>>
>>> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog
>>>
>>> They also allow the particular verification method used to be listed
>>>
>>>
>>> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/ 
>>> Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods
>>>
>>> One drawback of this method is that all claims sent together get  
>>> lumped
>>> together into a single bucket wrt verification
>>>
>>> paul
>>>
>>> Martin Atkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Henrik Biering wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree!
>>>>> If the range of SReg attributes is expanded, however, I would  
>>>>> suggest to
>>>>> add phone number (incl. quality as suggested for email) and  
>>>>> possibly
>>>>> street+city address line(s). That would make it possible to fill  
>>>>> in a
>>>>> somewhat larger part of typical registration forms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might be good to apply the quality thing to all of the fields.
>>>>
>>>> One approach might be to add a "verified" argument that contains  
>>>> a list
>>>> of names of fields that the OP has verified in some way.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think the SREG spec itself needs work done since the  
>>>> 1.1 draft
>>>> (that was never published) has a bunch of problems. It might be  
>>>> better to do
>>>> such work in a separate working group; I already have an updated  
>>>> 1.1 draft
>>>> with some of the problems from the current 1.1 draft fixed that  
>>>> could
>>>> potentially be used as a basis, though I'll need to dig it out  
>>>> since I'm not
>>>> sure what I checked it in to.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> specs mailing list
>>>> specs at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Madsen
>>> e:paulmadsen @ ntt-at.com
>>> p:613-482-0432
>>> m:613-282-8647
>>> web:connectid.blogspot.com
>>> ConnectID <http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --Breno
>
> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs