I know, that folks are gonna jump up and say that let us get Santosh the author of this post banned!
Right, but not so fast! Look at this Link. http://hueniverse.com/2010/06/xauth-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-idea/ Six month back there was a lot of heartbreak bcos i called this man an Idiot. And six months back this man admitted that I called him an idiot! Yes! I called Eran Hammer Lahav an Idiot! And look at the SHIT he has been drooling on us all this while. Don't you see it guys? I am in the great mood to express my views in the "Choisest vocabulary" short of getting banned here! So I shall refrain and use only good vocabulary here. Thank you all so much! On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> wrote: > I have great respect for your work Dick Hardt! > > If anyone can bring this whole "MESSED UP" situation together, it is only > you. > > Also I will take up your suggestions, and desist from making any more > comments on this forum.henceforth! > > Let us hope that you can take up this cause forward! Otherwise I am gonna > come back here! > > HAHAHA! I can see Brian Kissel and gang cleaning there pitchforks and > lickin there lips in anticipation. > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Santosh >> >> While I agree that deciding what is respectful and disrespectful is >> challenging and contextual, many participants in this community find some of >> your emails counter productive. >> >> I would find your participation more productive if you commented on the >> issues rather than the people. Negative comments about people may be >> interpreted as attacks -- not what I hope you are wanting to accomplish. >> >> If you are concerned about someone's actions, I would suggest that you >> describe the action and describe what you are concerned about. If you are >> concerned about what Chris Messina has done, please describe what you think >> it is he has done and why that is not in the best interest of the community. >> Attacking Chris and challenging him on the list is not acceptable. >> >> I look forward to your continued participation and hope my suggestions are >> helpful. >> >> -- Dick >> >> >> On 2010-06-06, at 8:50 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote: >> >> Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and >> "DISRESPECTFULL". >> >> "BRIAN KISSEL"? >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your >>> disrespectful personal attacks. We encourage healthy debate on this list, >>> but with respect and focusing on issues, not people. When you say things >>> like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect >>> expected by other participants on this list. >>> >>> >>> · Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". >>> >>> · Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, >>> What Good Have you done for Google? >>> >>> · Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you >>> were going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So >>> don';t talk about this any more! >>> >>> · Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there >>> nonsense anymore?" >>> >>> You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and >>> temporarily banned from participating. You may intend no disrespect, but >>> the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is >>> unacceptable. Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group >>> and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> *___________* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* >>> >>> 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* >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan >>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM >>> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in >>> perspective once again. >>> >>> >>> 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog, >>> about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of >>> OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of >>> since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I >>> realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that >>> moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof >>> tops about XRD? >>> >>> >>> 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the >>> "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD, >>> >>> >>> 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours. >>> >>> >>> 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums. >>> >>> >>> All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of >>> hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs. >>> >>> >>> Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow >>> me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in >>> public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have >>> conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide >>> by your conditions. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you >>> have been notified many times in the past. Please desist or be prepared to >>> lose the privilege of participating in the dialog. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> *___________* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* >>> >>> 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* >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan >>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG >>> >>> >>> Questions/answers inline >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> >>> After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions. >>> >>> >>> 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you >>> earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would >>> be more appropriate. Do you agree? >>> >>> >>> >>> No, I don't agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently >>> employed by Google? >>> >>> >>> >>> I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google. >>> >>> >>> >>> Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good >>> Have you done for Google? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the >>> community for a two year term. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to >>> join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk >>> about this any more! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its >>> interests. If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would >>> advocate for Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community >>> have the ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking >>> at the behest of one or the other. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense >>> anymore?" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned, >>> sometimes not — I hope others can as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It >>> is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for >>> OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do >>> NOT have discovery. >>> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly >>> different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our >>> customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that >>> gets done. >>> >>> >>> For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not >>> been sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the >>> use cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It >>> is not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply >>> isn't the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the >>> consumer space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and >>> Twitter, and NOT the many other OpenID providers. >>> >>> >>> Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation >>> to help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has >>> already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing >>> identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal). >>> >>> >>> Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity >>> system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with >>> auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed >>> identity technology. Am I getting that right? >>> >>> >>> I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused >>> on what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on >>> the set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions >>> *tomorrow*. >>> >>> >>> My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the >>> market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's >>> comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters >>> are looking for better solutions tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction >>> that it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named >>> v.Next proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases >>> addressed), the world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven >>> irrelevant. I don't see it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others >>> have said, there will be an identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than >>> later, and if that work doesn't happen within the OIDF, we're going to be >>> pitching a product that no one has really said that they want, or are >>> currently signing up to implement, based on the lack of clarity in the >>> description of v.Next today, whereas there are already working prototypes of >>> the Connect proposal in the wild. >>> >>> >>> There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine >>> solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x >>> and beyond. >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> -- Dick >>> >>> >>> On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote: >>> >>> > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see >>> enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is >>> too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want. >>> The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are >>> planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those >>> problems. >>> > >>> > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized >>> identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad >>> companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring >>> cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities >>> of the marketplace. >>> > >>> > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology >>> built. A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I >>> don't know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and >>> David's proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is >>> to implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong >>> way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working >>> group before it's even started. >>> > >>> > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question >>> to the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or >>> drift into irrelevance. >>> > >>> > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Allen >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of >>> the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the >>> OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David >>> agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes >>> counter to what we had concluded at the meeting. >>> >> >>> >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to >>> be in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no >>> point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF. >>> >> >>> >> -- Dick >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Dick, >>> >>> >>> >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have >>> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for >>> OAuth2 within the OIDF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that >>> all other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if >>> we could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID >>> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future >>> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely >>> implemented and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely >>> irrelevant. Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this >>> imitative. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not >>> sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's >>> no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hope that clarifies things >>> >>> Allen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen >>> >>>> >>> >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work >>> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect >>> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would >>> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside, >>> we did not discuss. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a >>> change since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the >>> original charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as >>> drafted. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by >>> seeing postings on public mailing lists. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> WTF? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- Dick >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> board mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > board mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://hi.im/santosh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://hi.im/santosh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://hi.im/santosh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://hi.im/santosh >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> >> > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > -- http://hi.im/santosh
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
