Is there a free hosting service for that? That seems to be the biggest difference here.
=nat 2010/5/25 Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]>: > Why not just copy the scheme that the W3C uses? > > They have an issue tracker and a bunch of other stuff and I am pretty > sure it is all based on open source. The only part that isn't is their > conference bridge with an IRC interface which is really cool but > requires a commercial bridge. > > Now if someone did that in Asterisk... > > > 2010/5/25 Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>: >> >From the "commoner's" perspective, hg.openid.net and bitbucket.org/openid >> is somewhat different. Whether "openid" is in the "authority" segment or not >> makes the difference. >> >> For tools, wiki is sub-optimal for issue tracking. For that matter, I agree >> that bitbucket.org's issue tracking neither comes to my expectation, but at >> least, I would not have to set a server up or create new identity. I can >> reuse my openid. >> >> Ideally, it should be something that allows us to: >> >> - Use OpenID to login >> - Track the changes. >> - Issue should be assigned >> - the expected end date >> - person in charge >> - status >> >> This will greately simplify our lives. Wiki is not so good for these when >> many issues starts to accumulate. FYI, I use redmine for my day job projects >> and are fairly good, but it is not a hosted solution. >> >> =nat >> >> (2010/05/25 13:05), David Recordon wrote: >> >> Or continue using BitBucket without a custom domain. I'm all for tools, but >> mercurial.openid.net versus bitbucket.com/openid doesn't feel like a large >> difference. >> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ http://twitter.com/_nat_en _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
