The Connect problem space (as I understand it, I am having to guess as there are no requirements in the charter) is a subset of the v.Next work.
The discovery in Connect is a duplication of the v.Next discover work. Now that the v.Next work is moving along, why can't we all work together on one spec? If a simple version is needed sooner, why can't we do that work together? You have effectively forked the OpenID process David because you were frustrated with the pace of v.Next and because you don't care about some of the use cases. A healthy community cares about the needs of all the members, not just the needs of a few individuals. Are you saying that you don't care about the needs of other members of the community? Since you are building on top of OAuth, are not working with the other WGs, and have decided you don't care about a number of use cases that are important to many members of the community, I have suggested you do it outside the OpenID community. If the community is not working how you would like it to work, you can either be part of the solution to resolve the issues, or you can be part of the problem. Right now I see you as being part of the problem. I'd like you to be part of the solution. -- Dick On 2010-05-26, at 11:07 AM, David Recordon wrote: > I'm obviously +1 for this work occurring inside the OpenID Foundation. But as > Eran said, there's momentum pushing this work forward, and whether this > happens within the OIDF is not a gating factor. Since I posted the OpenID > Connect proposal we've evolved and simplified it, an engineer at Six Apart > built a prototype client and server, and we've received some really positive > feedback from both potential clients and servers in a range of industries. > > I want this work to occur within the OpenID Foundation, but am tired of a > small number of people trying to stop us from even creating a Working Group. > > I'm also supportive of the v.Next work moving forward so that there's > actually a technical proposal which can be understood, compared, and ideally > combined where it makes sense. > > The risk to the OpenID brand and Foundation is clear to me if this work > happens elsewhere; the risk of moving the Connect Work Group forward within > the Foundation remains quite unclear to me. > > --David > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for having the work done inside the OpenID Foundation. > > 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 Eran > Hammer-Lahav > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect) > > Discussing the name is a distraction. The issue is whether the OpenID > foundation wants to be where identity work is done, or where the OpenID > protocol (and nothing else) is done. Again, the question is very simple: > OAuth is going to have an identity layer (that's a done deal) - do you > want to work on it here under the OpenID foundation or not? > > Everything else (like naming, migration path from OpenID 2.0 to OAuth 2.0 > identity) is stuff for the WG to figure out. > > This is a fundamental question far beyond all this geek talk: what is the > purpose of this community? Where are its boundaries? Is this the hub of > web identity work, or just one tiny piece of it? > > I'm happy with any answer. > > It would be helpful if people would voice clear opinions on this rather > than going in circles (i.e., start with "I'm for/against doing this work > here, and this is why..."). > > EHL > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:openid-specs- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Atkins > > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:49 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect) > > > > On 05/25/2010 01:56 PM, Allen Tom wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > A better way to look at OpenID Connect is to just think of it as > > > revised version of the OpenID Hybrid. The purpose of the Hybrid WG was > > > to find a way to combine OpenID Authentication with the approval of an > > > Oauth access token into a single request/response. > > > > > > > "OpenID Connect" isn't actually compatible with OpenID at anything but > the > > highest conceptual level. > > > > > Renaming the OpenID Connect WG to be the OpenID Hybrid v2 WG could > > > possibly clarify the goals of the WG, and reduce confusion within the > > community. > > > Afterall - Hybrid is intended for the case where the user's IdP is > > > also the SP, so the Connect proposal is really a revised Hybrid > > > proposal, rather than a proposal for OpenID v.Next > > > > > > > I think this would only make sense if the resulting protocol were > functionally > > equivalent to OpenID. That is to say that I can implement it against my > > existing OpenID infrastructure without doing data migrations, changing > my > > UI, etc. > > > > I think the most important deviation in OpenID Connect is that the > identifier > > is no longer expected to be human-readable; while I completely agree > that > > this is the right design if we're starting over from a clean slate, > that's a > > breaking change for most existing consumer implementations that link to > the > > identifier as the user's "home page" or "profile page". > > > > I still think this thing should be branded with a stronger OAuth > connotation > > than an OpenID connotation, since it's far closer to OAuth than it is to > > OpenID. I didn't really like the OpenID Connect name, but at least it > made it > > sound like this was something new and different; calling it OpenID/OAuth > > Hybrid makes it sound a lot more like a different implementation of the > same > > thing than the radical rethink that OpenID Connect actually represents. > > > > That's my two cents, at least. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
