I don't think that it makes sense to only pull it into the Artifact Binding Working Group, but do want to collaborate. :)
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks David, > > and you can contribute "connect" draft to the Artifact Binding WG as well > ;-). > > That will save a lot of time for you as well if you and I can move > quickly enough to adjust the differences and clarify the text. Then, > by the end of May, "connect" is out of the door for the public review. > (True, the discovery portion may be a bit out of scope but if Y! and > G. are OK, rest of us are OK, I think.) > > =nat > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:45 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Inline... > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dewitt, > >> > >> Since I am not a marketing type, I may not have been communicating it > >> properly. > >> I got a lot of positive criticism around it during IIW X, but the OIDF > >> chartered WG, > >> "Artifact Binding" Working Group is producing OAuth2.0-- binding of > >> OpenID Assertions. > >> > >> The spec has gone through 6 draft specs, and you can find it here: > >> > >> https://openid4.us/specs/ab/ ("OpenID for us", not ver. 4 :-) > >> > >> >From what I see, it is kind of close to what proposed OpenID Connect > >> would do. > >> It lacks some features like webfinger support (which I expected v.Next > >> Discovery > >> WG would sort out), cookie generation, etc., but they can also be > >> added in, I suppose. > >> It is kind of unfortunate that though I like those features of the > >> connect proposal, > >> I cannot incorporate them because I have read them and these are not > >> contributed to OIDF yet. > > > > I currently plan to contribute the Connect proposal into an OpenID > > Foundation Working Group. If that's undesired then I'll remove "OpenID" > from > > the name and continue working on it elsewhere. > > > >> > >> Artifact Binding does other things that connect proposal does not: it > >> supports mobile handsets as well as higher level of assurance.David > >> might be thinking that these are > >> redundant features, but they are very useful in commerce etc. setting > >> and all these public key crypto (actually, any crypto for that matter) > >> things are optional. > > > > I don't think that they are redundant. Mobile is really important and I'm > > glad that you held the session on Artifact Binding at IIW so that I could > > learn more about the limitations within that sort of environment! > > It's not said enough, but Nat you've really been the only one making > > technical progress within the Foundation the past six months and that > > progress is a good thing. > > > >> > >> I am planning to freeze the draft latest by the end of May. > >> > >> For expediting the process of getting "connect" like features out, > >> it might be better to utilize this WG as a conduit instead, > >> and still we can message the market that we are producing a > >> single version of the OpenID 3. > >> > >> Just my 2c. > >> > >> =nat > >> > >> P.S. I plan to contribute openid4.us to OIDF. I just needed it to get > >> SSL cert to demonstrate Artifact Binding at IIW. What would be the > >> process? > >> > >> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:45 AM, DeWitt Clinton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > From where I'm sitting, I see them as mutually compatible and parallel > >> > goals, but not now the same technology, and that's okay. > >> > Connect being "build on what the web is already doing and very much > >> > wants/needs today", and v.Next being "what could be done given the > >> > luxury of > >> > time to explore." > >> > The OIDF could make an effort to wait for the latter to build the > >> > former, > >> > but honestly, the former isn't going to wait for the OIDF. Which is > why > >> > I > >> > advocate a parallel approach if we hope to see the OIDF involved (and > I > >> > do). > >> > > >> > Please correct my understanding of the situation if I got the above > >> > wrong, > >> > as I'm only following the discussions from the edges and I'm > >> > (blissfully) > >> > out of the loop. > >> > -DeWitt > >> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> +1 to Nat's suggestion. While we know that both David and Joseph are > >> >> very > >> >> well qualified to lead this committee, if we do have differing > >> >> perspectives on the future direction of the next iterations of > OpenID, > >> >> it > >> >> would be good to have representatives from both perspectives involved > >> >> in > >> >> leading the process. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> > >> >> Brian > >> >> ___________ > >> >> > >> >> Brian Kissel > >> >> CEO - JanRain, Inc. > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502 > >> >> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 > >> >> > >> >> Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX. > >> >> Learn > >> >> more at www.rpxnow.com > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: [email protected] > >> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nat > >> >> Sakimura > >> >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:09 AM > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Technical Committee Chairs > >> >> > >> >> I have a little concern here. It might be a healthy thing to have > >> >> discussions, but in the end, I really want v.Next and Connect camp to > >> >> unite. In that respect, both chair and co-chair coming from Connect > >> >> camp bothers me. > >> >> > >> >> You say that Joseph was close to be a co-chair, but the situation > >> >> surrounding it has changed since then. At the time, there was only > >> >> v.Next. Now, it looks like there are v.Next and Connect camp. > >> >> > >> >> Do not you think it is better to first ask v.Next camp people to step > >> >> up? > >> >> > >> >> Would not somebody form v.Next camp step up? > >> >> > >> >> =nat > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Recordon <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > The committee elects its own chairs. A few months ago we elected > Dick > >> >> > as > >> >> > chair and me as co-chair. Joseph was really close to being > co-chair. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So, what is the process that chooses committee chairs? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:01 PM, David Recordon > >> >> >> <[email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Today the Board passed a resolution directing the Executive > >> >> >> > Director, > >> >> >> > Chair, > >> >> >> > Technical Committee, and outside council to explore a > contracting > >> >> >> > relationship with Dick Hardt to move the v.Next work forward. > Dick > >> >> >> > brought > >> >> >> > up how there could be a conflict during this process given that > he > >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > chair of the Technical Committee. So for the time being I'll > take > >> >> >> > on > >> >> the > >> >> >> > chair role with Joseph Smarr (who wasn't at the meeting but I > >> >> >> > spoke > >> >> to a > >> >> >> > few > >> >> >> > hours ago) taking on the co-chair role. > >> >> >> > Technical Committee, expect a followup email around starting to > >> >> >> > pull > >> >> >> > together a set of deliverables and timeline over the next week. > >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> > goal, as > >> >> >> > I understand it, is to either have a contract in place or a > >> >> >> > determination > >> >> >> > that it is unfeasible by the end of the this month. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> >> > --David > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> > board mailing list > >> >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) > >> >> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > >> >> >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> board mailing list > >> >> >> [email protected] > >> >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > board mailing list > >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) > >> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > >> >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> board mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> board mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > board mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) > >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > >> http://twitter.com/_nat_en > >> _______________________________________________ > >> board mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > board mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > http://twitter.com/_nat_en > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
