Chris, I have not seen any consensus to renaming v.Next to 2.x. Having said that, I don't think this WG needs to have a version does it?
I think this work would be really useful to the full spectrum of clients. -- Dick On 2010-05-31, at 3:27 PM, Chris Messina wrote: > Mike Jones prepared the initial version of this charter, and I took the > liberty of renaming v.Next to 2.x, and made compatibility with 2.x an > explicit goal of this work. > > I'm reluctant of the applicability of this work to active clients and have > subsequently removed this line: > > · produce user experience guidelines for supporting for a spectrum of > clients, including passive clients per current usage, thin active clients, > and active clients with OP functionality, > > Feedback welcome. > > Chris > > (a) Charter. > (i) WG name: OpenID 2.x User Experience. > (ii) Purpose: Produce a user experience specification or family of > specifications for OpenID 2.x that address the limitations and drawbacks > present in the OpenID 2.0 that limit OpenID’s applicability, adoption, > usability, privacy, and security. Specific goals are: > · produce user experience guidelines for less intrusive authentication > user experiences than full-page browser redirect, > · produce user experience guidelines for controlled and uncontrolled > release of attributes, > · produce user experience guidelines for use of identities and > attributes by non-browser applications, > · produce user experience guidelines for optimized protocol flows > combining authentication, attribute release, and resource authorization, > · produce user experience guidelines for use of OpenID on mobile > devices, > · seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID 2.x > specifications. > > Compatibility with OpenID 2.x is an explicit goal for this work. > > (iii) Scope: Produce a current generation OpenID user experience > specification or specifications, consistent with the purpose statement. > (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: OpenID 2.x User Experience 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 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 maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved, consistent > with the purpose and scope. > (b) Background Information. > (i) Related work being done in other WGs or organizations: Draft User > Interface (UI) Extension. Kantara Universal Login Experience (ULX) working > group. RPX product design. Facebook Authentication Guidelines. Google user > authentication research. > (ii) Proposers: > Chris Messina, [email protected] (chair) > Dick Hardt, [email protected] > Additional proposers to be added here > (iii) Anticipated Contributions: None. > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate, Google > > Personal: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina > ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
