No, the process requires that working group participants sign an IPR agreement.
But the process doesn't place any special requirements on proposers - hence
Shade's ability to be a pseudonymous proposer. If Shade wants to be a working
group member, he'll do so under his real name, and we still may not know who
Shade is, because we can't correlate his two distinct identities, which is
fine...
-- Mike
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:30 PM
To: Dick Hardt; OpenID Specs Mailing List
Subject: RE: OpenID v.Next Core Protocol WG Charter :: DRAFT 2
Just an aside: does the OpenID process allows anonymous participation in
working groups?
EHL
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 3:29 PM
To: OpenID Specs Mailing List
Subject: OpenID v.Next Core Protocol WG Charter :: DRAFT 2
Hello All
Thanks for the feedback to date, below is a revised draft. Changes are:
- changed use of public key from ensure to evaluate.
- added goal to evaluate single sign out
- broke multiple atttibute sources and verification of attributes and sources
into separate goals
- added a number of additional proposers (Yes, Shade is in the list as he is
supportive of this WG.)
I welcome any further feedback or additional requests to be added as a
proposer. If I receive no significant feedback by EOB tomorrow, I will consider
the charter bashing done.
-- Dick
(a) Charter.
(i) WG name: OpenID v.Next Core Protocol.
(ii) Purpose: Produce a core protocol specification or family
of specifications for OpenID v.Next that address the limitations and drawbacks
present in OpenID 2.0 that limit OpenID's applicability, adoption, usability,
privacy, and security. Specific goals are:
* define core message flows and verification methods,
* enable support for controlled release of attributes,
* enable aggregation of attributes from multiple attribute sources,
* enable attribute sources to provide verified attributes,
* enable the sources of attributes to be verified,
* enable support for a spectrum of clients, including passive clients per
current usage, thin active clients, and active clients with OP functionality,
* enable authentication to and use of attributes by non-browser
applications,
* enable optimized protocol flows combining authentication, attribute
release, and resource authorization,
* define profiles and support features intended to enable OpenID to be
used at levels of assurance higher than NIST SP800-63 v2 level 1 ,
* ensure the use of OpenID on mobile devices,
* ensure the use of OpenID on existing browsers with URL length
restrictions,
* define an extension mechanism for identified capabilities that are not
in the core specification
* evaluate the use of public key technology to enhance, security,
scalability and performance,
* evaluate inclusion of single sign out
* complement OAuth 2.0
* minimize migration effort from OpenID 2.0
* seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID v.Next
specifications.
Compatibility with OpenID 2.0 is an explicit non-goal for this
work.
(iii) Scope: Produce a next generation OpenID core protocol
specification or specifications, consistent with the purpose statement.
(iv) Proposed List of Specifications: OpenID v.Next Core
Protocol and possibly related specifications.
(v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers
of OpenID Providers, Relying Parties, Active Clients, and non-browser
applications utilizing OpenID.
(vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business: English.
(vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on the working group
mailing list, working group conference calls, and face-to-face meetings at the
Internet Identity Workshop and OpenID summits.
(viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is
completed: Work will not be deemed to be complete until there is a rough
consensus that the resulting protocol specification or family of specifications
fulfills the working group goals. Additional proposed changes beyond that
initial consensus will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or
decrease consensus within the working group. The work will be completed once
it is apparent that rough consensus on the draft has been achieved and there
are two working, interoperating implementations, consistent with the purpose
and scope.
(b) Background Information.
(i) Related work being done in other WGs or organizations:
OpenID Authentication 2.0 and related specifications, including Attribute
Exchange (AX), Contract Exchange (CX), Provider Authentication Policy Extension
(PAPE), Artifact Binding (AB) and the draft User Interface (UI) Extension.
OAuth 2.0, SAML 2.0 Core and SAML Authn Context.
(ii) Proposers:
Dick Hardt, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (chair)
Michael B. Jones, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Breno de Medeiros, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Ashish Jain, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
George Fletcher, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
John Bradley, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Nat Sakimura, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Shade, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
(iii) Anticipated Contributions: None.
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
