Well, Eran published a draft of the full XRD discovery standard yesterday. That changes things, because puts discovery on much more solid ground. The biggest remaining issue to be addressed is on trust/security/signatures but there is already substantial progress on that front as well, and we can probably expect a similarly mature draft within a few weeks.<br>
<br>Based on these developments, should we consider a commitment to do the OpenID discovery spec in time for 2.1? I think it is important to decide this early on because it affects decisions about the structure of the AuthN spec.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Breno de Medeiros <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:breno@google.com">breno@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Splitting the specification will also make it easier to understand the<br>
changes between Yadis-based and XRD-based discovery, since the authN<br>
part of the spec is unlikely to change as much.<br>
<br>
I am in favor of separating the two specifications and create a<br>
2.0-compatible (with language clean-up) version of discovery.<br>
<br>
2009/1/6 Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> But I suppose it is worthwhile to make the spec clearler.<br>
> It can be clearer by decomposeing the notion of OP into Discovery Service<br>
> and Authentication Service than collectively calling it as "OP". That will<br>
> facilitate a better understanding of the strength and weakness of the<br>
> protocol as well.<br>
><br>
> =nat<br>
><br>
> 2009/1/6 Drummond Reed <<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net">drummond.reed@cordance.net</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Agreed that it makes sense to split it out when the underlying work (XRD<br>
>> 1.0) is ready.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> =Drummond<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> From: David Recordon [mailto:<a href="mailto:drecordon@sixapart.com">drecordon@sixapart.com</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:24 PM<br>
>> To: Drummond Reed<br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:sappenin@gmail.com">sappenin@gmail.com</a>; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form<br>
>> Discovery Working Group)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in<br>
>> OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID<br>
>> discovery works. I'd much rather make this sort of change once rather than<br>
>> twice.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --David<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I'm just catching up on holiday mail and wanted to add another +1 to<br>
>> separation of Discovery from AuthN. The sooner the better…<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> =Drummond<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net">specs-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net">specs-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf<br>
>> Of David Fuelling<br>
>> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 8:47 AM<br>
>> To: Nat Sakimura<br>
>> Cc: John Bradley; <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: Proposal to form Discovery Working Group<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> 2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.<br>
>> In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service and<br>
>> Authentication Service.<br>
>> We should be explicit about it.<br>
>><br>
>> +1. I would like to see discovery services separated from OP services<br>
>> too.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> John Bradley wrote:<br>
>> > Breno,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I agree. I recommended separating discovery into a separate doc for<br>
>> > 2.1.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > There didn't seem to be support for the idea at the time, perhaps<br>
>> > circumstances have changed and the idea will be accepted now.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Regards<br>
>> > John Bradley<br>
>> > =jbradley<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> specs mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> specs mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
> <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> specs mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
--Breno<br>
<br>
+1 (650) 214-1007 desk<br>
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)<br>
MTV-41-3 : 383-A<br>
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>--Breno<br><br>+1 (650) 214-1007 desk<br>+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)<br>MTV-41-3 : 383-A <br>PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br>