From gail at oidf.org  Tue Oct  3 00:48:00 2023
From: gail at oidf.org (Gail Hodges)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 00:48:00 +0000
Subject: Versioning proposal
In-Reply-To: <CANtBS9fP2itZmwmu887-gvzJ=FUeg2Wv5RVQ1BFhQwU6tWJbUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANtBS9d5+FjcrNgWmZFe3nyXpe1HM7uDQjT+OBSn0hTuqus53w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CO3PR18MB48775936E2142AE4023E2070A9C3A@CO3PR18MB4877.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANtBS9fp+Q=undPyr+Buvt4Tk69fKmhZB5q1CXxUwjZ0r45K+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MW4PR02MB742882BA12728FD747E21C1CB7C2A@MW4PR02MB7428.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANtBS9foN1BGiMannen42rjtOU7NgDAtpgew2HdyqAABhSeX5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANtBS9fP2itZmwmu887-gvzJ=FUeg2Wv5RVQ1BFhQwU6tWJbUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SJ0PR18MB486646FAB3D1830E0A5CDF00A9C4A@SJ0PR18MB4866.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

Sounds very productive, thanks for the recap and the quick collaboration.

From: Atul Tulshibagwale <atul at sgnl.ai>
Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:36 PM
To: michael_b_jones at hotmail.com <michael_b_jones at hotmail.com>
Cc: Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>, specs at openid.net <specs at openid.net>, 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 <majordan at visa.com>
Subject: Re: 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:

     *   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.
     *   We already have draft numbering, and protocol version numbers may be hard to distinguish from that.

  1.  Mike proposed that we add specific feature flags in the Transmitter Configuration Metadata. We currently have two things that require versioning:

     *   Sub_id at top level
     *   API style (previous API has differences with the current API)

  1.  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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:atul at sgnl.ai>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 6:00 PM
To: Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org<mailto:gail at oidf.org>>
Cc: specs at openid.net<mailto:specs at openid.net>; michael_b_jones at hotmail.com<mailto:michael_b_jones at hotmail.com>; Mark <mark at considrd.consulting>; OpenID RISC List <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>>; Tim Cappalli <tim.cappalli at microsoft.com<mailto:tim.cappalli at microsoft.com>>; Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com<mailto:richanna at amazon.com>>; majordan at visa.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:atul at sgnl.ai>>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:55 PM
To: specs at openid.net<mailto:specs at openid.net> <specs at openid.net<mailto:specs at openid.net>>
Cc: Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org<mailto:gail at oidf.org>>, OpenID RISC List <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>>, Tim Cappalli <tim.cappalli at microsoft.com<mailto:tim.cappalli at microsoft.com>>, Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com<mailto: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/attachments/20231003/07b9f180/attachment-0001.html>

From hannes.kunnen1999+openid at gmail.com  Fri Oct 20 15:17:53 2023
From: hannes.kunnen1999+openid at gmail.com (Hannes Kunnen)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:17:53 +0200
Subject: Missing IANA registry values
Message-ID: <CAPCbCa6A+jshQ5Xh5noy45YTS826SxGE98fNKm+DV_NvdAGJCg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I hope this is the correct audience, if not please let me know.

The *frontchannel_logout_session_supported* value defined in *OpenID
Connect Front-Channel Logout*, section 3
<https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-frontchannel-1_0.html#OPLogout> is
not present in section 6.3
<https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-frontchannel-1_0.html#ASMetadataRegistry>
of the specification and in IANA registry *OAuth Authorization Server
Metadata
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#authorization-server-metadata>*
.

The *prompt_values_supported* metadata value defined in *Initiating User
Registration via OpenID Connect 1.0*, section 4.2
<https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-prompt-create-1_0.html#section-4.2> is
also not present in IANA registry *OAuth Authorization Server Metadata
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#authorization-server-metadata>*
.

Shouldn't they both be present in the registry, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance,
Hannes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20231020/f8b1283e/attachment.html>