[OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
Ashish Jain
email at ashishjain.com
Thu Jul 25 17:24:31 UTC 2013
I'm fine with "*Native Application Working Group"*. Let's identify the next
steps.
-- Ashish
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:19 AM, n-sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp> wrote:
> OK with me as well.
>
>
> (2013/07/25 8:02), John Bradley wrote:
>
>> Fine with me.
>>
>> On 2013-07-24, at 6:44 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
>> <mailto:Michael.Jones@**microsoft.com <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m fine with that. What about the other specs council members and
>>> proposers?
>>> *From:*openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> >[mailto:openi**d-specs-bounces at lists.openid.**net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> <mailto:specs-bounces at lists.**openid.net<specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>>]*On
>>> Behalf Of*Chuck Mortimore
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:31 PM
>>> *To:*Lewis Adam-CAL022
>>> *Cc:*specs at openid.net
>>> <mailto:specs at openid.net>;spec**s-council at openid.net<specs-council at openid.net>
>>> <mailto:specs-council at openid.**net <specs-council at openid.net>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
>>>
>>> Opening discussion again to help push this to completion.
>>> I'm still not comfortable with "single authorization" as I believe
>>> it's antithetical to what we actually need to build. I do believe
>>> SSO best describes the use-cases, but I'm willing to drop it to
>>> achieve agreement.
>>> How about we drop all the qualifiers and simply call it the: *Native
>>> Application Working Group*- it's high level and independent of
>>>
>>> implementation, other than we're working on concerns for native apps.
>>> We can start with the current scope and it's easily re-charterable
>>> down the road.
>>> -cmort
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Lewis Adam-CAL022
>>> <Adam.Lewis at motorolasolutions.**com <Adam.Lewis at motorolasolutions.com>
>>> <mailto:Adam.Lewis@**motorolasolutions.com<Adam.Lewis at motorolasolutions.com>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> +2
>>> We have written our own such function as we indeed call it an “SSO
>>> client.” It’s what developers understand. It’s what user’s
>>> understand. It’s what RFIs and RFPs call for. At the end of the day
>>> a name is just a name, but I personally find the name “native single
>>> authorization agent” to be a bit confusing.
>>> Let’s think about how this is intended to be used. An mobile user
>>> downloads a Twitter client, a Facebook client, a G+ client and some
>>> other clients. He signs on once and gets access to their information
>>> on Twitter/Facebook/G+/other. Developers will think of it the same
>>> way. It’s SSO across native apps. Imagine if the SAML WebSSO profile
>>> was named the SAML single authorization agent profile??J
>>> adam
>>> *From:*openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> >[mailto:openi**d-specs-bounces at lists.openid.**net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net>>]*On
>>> Behalf Of*Richard Sand
>>> *Sent:*Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:00 PM
>>> *To:*Ashish Jain
>>> *Cc:*specs at openid.net
>>> <mailto:specs at openid.net>;spec**s-council at openid.net<specs-council at openid.net>
>>> <mailto:specs-council at openid.**net <specs-council at openid.net>>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
>>>
>>> +1. The name will impact potential adoption, foolish to think it
>>> won't, and "SSO" is a commonly (mis)understood term and often appears
>>> in business requirements, even though it is often a misnomer or
>>> neglects other important related aspects such as log off, session
>>> management etc. SSO is a name here, not a binding technical scope
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Ashish Jain <email at ashishjain.com
>>> <mailto:email at ashishjain.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't understand / agree with the objection on
>>> openid-specs-native-sso. That's the intent and the primary use
>>> case. It will be far more appealing / understandable to the mobile
>>> app developers than 'single authorization agent'.
>>> -- Ashish
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Paul Madsen
>>> <paulmadsen at rogers.com <mailto:paulmadsen at rogers.com>**> wrote:
>>>
>>> oh and I guess I should have mentioned the plans for a PRISMA
>>> subgroup ......
>>>
>>> On 7/17/13 7:51 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok you have a point. NSAA then.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I want it in red.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-07-17, at 7:28 PM, =JeffH<Jeff.Hodges@**KingsMountain.com>
>>> <mailto:Jeff.Hodges@**KingsMountain.com <Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> request that the name be changed to "Native Single
>>> Authorization Agent", with
>>>
>>> the mailing list name openid-specs-nssa
>>>
>>> but "Native Single Authorization Agent" yields "nsaa" rather
>>> than "nssa", yes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> thus "openid-specs-nsaa" ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =JeffH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>
>>> specs mailing list
>>>
>>> specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net**>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>
>>> specs mailing list
>>>
>>> specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net**>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net**>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net**>
>>>
>>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net**>
>>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
>
> 本メールに含まれる情報は機密情報であり、**宛先に記載されている方のみに送信 することを意図しております。**意図された受取人以外の方によるこれらの情報の
> 開示、複製、再配布や転送など一切の利用が禁止されています。**誤って本メール を受信された場合は、申し訳ございませんが、**送信者までお知らせいただき、受
> 信されたメールを削除していただきますようお願い致します。
> PLEASE READ:
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended for
> the named recipient(s) only.
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
> notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of
> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your
> system.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20130725/3227da55/attachment.html>
More information about the specs
mailing list