While I am a fan of using tools to simplify our lives, I am concerned that we have setup a number of tools that seemed like a good idea and did not get utilized. I am fearful that community members will spend time on a new tool, only to be disappointed in lack of use.
How about we just use the wiki we have now to create a document we can all edit? -- Dick On 2010-05-24, at 7:24 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > There are various plans, but since OIDF is primarily operating in public, > I should think that "Amateur" plan would suffice. It is US$5/mo. > The limitation is that it can only have one private repository, > but that should be ok. > > =nat > > (2010/05/25 1:56), Brian Kissel wrote: >> What is the cost? The Tech Committee has some budget. >> >> 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: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:05 AM >> To: Johannes Ernst >> Cc: OpenID Specs Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] OpenID v.Next Discovery Working Group Proposal >> >> Good idea. >> >> I can setup a project under bitbucket.org/openid/ (shall we upgrade to >> non-free version >> so that we get it under openid.net?) and it has a rudimentary bug >> tracking system. >> It can be used by logging in by OpenID. >> >> =nat >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Johannes Ernst >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Allen, combining what you just wrote with what Brian said on the board >>> mailing list about MRDs -- perhaps it would make sense to set up a "bug >>> tracking system" of some kind and use that to drive spec evolution? >>> On May 23, 2010, at 18:56, Allen Tom wrote: >>> >>> Hi Johannes, >>> >>> There isn't a document summarizing the deficiencies with OpenID 2.0 >>> discovery - I think it would be very useful for the WG and for the >>> >> Community >> >>> if we wrote this down >>> >>> Off the top of my head, some of the problems are: >>> >>> Yadis discovery is very vague as to exactly how the RP is supposed to >>> >> fetch >> >>> the OP's discovery document. Should it send the magic Accept header? >>> >> Look >> >>> for the X-XRDS-Location header in the response? Do HTML discovery? In >>> practice, many implementers have had problems implementing discovery >>> >> because >> >>> there are too many ways to do it >>> Speaking of Yadis, the specs need to be revised, and it's unclear how to >>> >> go >> >>> about doing this >>> Because a compromised discovery document can result in the complete >>> breakdown in OpenID security - it's important that we find ways to >>> >> increase >> >>> the security of discovery - perhaps it can be signed? Moved into DNS? >>> Discovery is hard to implement - the majority of the code in OpenID >>> libraries is to implement discovery. We can probably simplify discovery >>> >> to >> >>> require less code to implement >>> Delegation is a really useful feature in OpenID - it was pretty >>> straightforward in OpenID 1.1, but is very confusing (to say the least) >>> >> in >> >>> OpenID 2.0 - we can probably do something in discovery to make >>> >> delegation >> >>> work better >>> The infamous NASCAR problem could possibly be helped by discovery >>> The infamous phishing problem could also possibly be helped by discovery >>> LRDD, host-meta, and webfinger are pretty interesting - we should see >>> >> how >> >>> OpenID can leverage these new specs >>> >>> I'm sure that there are more issues with OpenID 2.0 discovery. Anyone >>> >> else >> >>> want to take a stab at it? >>> >>> Allen >>> >>> >>> On 5/21/10 7:55 PM, "Johannes Ernst"<[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> On May 21, 2010, at 19:28, Allen Tom wrote: >>> >>> ... there's universal consensus that the existing OpenID 2.0 discovery >>> mechanism is very deficient ... >>> >>> Is there a summary somewhere of this "universal consensus" of >>> >> deficiencies? >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> Johannes Ernst >>> NetMesh Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura ([email protected]) > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
