Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
Johnny Bufu wrote: I believe a key difference here is between what people would be willing to do, and what people actually (will) do. For example: - I would be willing to go to a rugby game, but I don't know if any of my friends are going, so I probably won't go - most of my friends who like rugby may be thinking and acting the same way, or - most of my friends would go if they knew rugby, but they haven't discovered it yet. From a purely selfish point of view, I'm happy for this discussion to take part on the specs list just so I don't have to join and configure YET ANOTHER MAILING LIST(tm). :) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
Johnny Bufu wrote: These two seem to have been the rationale of the recent discussions about splitting the OpenID spec into core/discovery/etc., which seemed to make sense to a number of people (I'm just not sure if it's worth / good tactical move at this stage). I tend to think it's a good idea to modularize specifications in the same way as you'd probably modularize the implementation. This is why[1] I was pushing for separate Auth / service discovery stuff: the service discovery stuff is obviously useful for things other than auth, and there are *already* separate libraries for it (Service::Yadis and friends), so it makes sense for it to be given as a separate specification. On the other hand, I also think it's a good idea not to modularize too early: until there's some implementation experience, it's hard to say with certainty what parts make sense as distinct modules. I'm not that familiar with the AX stuff yet, but my gut feeling is that it'd be a good idea for someone to make an experimental implementation to get some implementation experience and then it'll probably be a lot more clear where the articulation points are that make spec modularization worthwhile. There's little point in debating it at this early stage, in my opinion. - [1] One of the reasons, anyway. The other reason was to reach a situation where the OpenID Authentication specification can largely reference only other specifications under the OpenID umberella, which means bringing the Yadis tech into OpenID land (which it basically already is, despite the distinct brand) and defining a subset of the XRDS schema to avoid referencing the entirety of XRI Resolution 2.0, which contains lots of stuff that is not necessary for OpenID and related tech. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 5-Apr-07, at 9:18 AM, Recordon, David wrote: I don't think this is really that important of a point given all the other things we need to do. People are doing to do things different then you would, but get the same result -- is that ok? I'm fine with doing things differently, I'm not arguing that a metadata format should not be created, just that IMHO for simplicity sake of reading the AX documents this format description should be merged into the core protocol spec. If down the road it should be split out then it always can be. Well, as one of the people that wrote the documents. We decided that having separate documents was better. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have a different opinion. We wanted to publish them on the website so that other people could look at them, but you did not want to do that, and you control the domain. Dick, that isn't a fair statement at all. It is not my decision to make if schemas.openid.net should be created and the content you're proposing put there. I've asked you multiple times to have a conversation on this list ending in a formal vote (like we've done for many other spec decisions) to make this decision. If I've missed this vote then please point me at it. I don't recall you ever actually telling me to have a vote. You stated you did not want to do it and to find some other home. I wanted to setup the schemas so that people could see how it worked, then I could actually get constructive comments back from the list and have something tangible to vote on. I have no ideal what the formal vote process on OpenID. The only that I know of that is documented is the process for approving the OpenID Authentication 2.0 specs. I'll post a question to the list if that is what you want. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 5-Apr-07, at 9:24 AM, Recordon, David wrote: Dick, see my other message but this is not about ME stopping you! We wanted to publish them on the website so that other people could look at them, but you did not want to do that, and you control the domain. Dick, that isn't a fair statement at all. It is not my decision to make if schemas.openid.net should be created and the content you're proposing put there. I've asked you multiple times to have a conversation on this list ending in a formal vote (like we've done for many other spec decisions) to make this decision. If I've missed this vote then please point me at it. I'm quite honestly not sure what more to say. If you want to see this work happen then you need to take the initiative and make it happen. You can't just expect to post a few messages to the ID Schemas list and have them magically start working. I'm all about taking advantage of existing momentum, but I have a hard time seeing anyone who cares about AX being unwilling to have this discussion as a part of the ID Schemas community. If there is anyone, I'd certainly like to understand the reasons why (beyond it being hard). We wrote a spec. We have working code. Other people have developed code as well. We need to publish a schema so that we can systems talk to each other. If *you* would like to see the work done over in ID Schemas, then *you* can work to make it happen there. The same for other people. If the work shifts to there, I am fine with it. Right now, I'm fine with doing the work here on the OpenID specs list. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:21, Dick Hardt wrote: On 5-Apr-07, at 9:18 AM, Recordon, David wrote: ... IMHO for simplicity sake of reading the AX documents this format description should be merged into the core protocol spec. If down the road it should be split out then it always can be. Well, as one of the people that wrote the documents. We decided that having separate documents was better. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have a different opinion. For somebody who currently doesn't have an opinion on this subject, could you briefly describe the rationale for your view? Johannes Ernst NetMesh Inc. http://netmesh.info/jernst ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 4/6/07, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5-Apr-07, at 9:18 AM, Recordon, David wrote: I'm fine with doing things differently, I'm not arguing that a metadata format should not be created, just that IMHO for simplicity sake of reading the AX documents this format description should be merged into the core protocol spec. If down the road it should be split out then it always can be. Well, as one of the people that wrote the documents. We decided that having separate documents was better. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have a different opinion. Having started an implementation, I'm glad that metadata is not part of the core, because metadata is not necessary for a wide range of applications. I think it will be useful eventually, but I'm glad that I can implement the core completely without thinking about metadata. If metadata were part of the core (even optionally!) I might not have even started writing code. I do wish that this thread did not contain so much bickering. Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 6-Apr-07, at 10:34 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote: Well, as one of the people that wrote the documents. We decided that having separate documents was better. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have a different opinion. For somebody who currently doesn't have an opinion on this subject, could you briefly describe the rationale for your view? If I'm only interested in moving attributes around (the current case of the OpenID libraries), I am not interested at all what the semantic of the attributes are, just in moving them from A to B. I'll let the parties at the both ends of the transaction look up the metadata and handle them based on that. On the other hand when I read a (new) spec it's a lot easier for me if there are clearly outlined components with which I don't necessarily have to deal at the same time; especially if the components have other uses beside the initial combination. These two seem to have been the rationale of the recent discussions about splitting the OpenID spec into core/discovery/etc., which seemed to make sense to a number of people (I'm just not sure if it's worth / good tactical move at this stage). Johnny ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 5-Apr-07, at 9:24 AM, Recordon, David wrote: I'm all about taking advantage of existing momentum, but I have a hard time seeing anyone who cares about AX being unwilling to have this discussion as a part of the ID Schemas community. If there is anyone, I'd certainly like to understand the reasons why (beyond it being hard). I believe a key difference here is between what people would be willing to do, and what people actually (will) do. For example: - I would be willing to go to a rugby game, but I don't know if any of my friends are going, so I probably won't go - most of my friends who like rugby may be thinking and acting the same way, or - most of my friends would go if they knew rugby, but they haven't discovered it yet. From what I've seen, interesting discussions can be sparkled and facilitated by people who do not seem to have been particularly interested in a subject beforehand, but happened to be around because they shared a broader interest with the community. We seem to have to potential to build momentum and a critical mass for AX and schema discussions here. I propose we continue the discussions wherever they happen to take place. If the intensity doesn't fade out, having invested a fair bit interest people will be more likely to move to a better suited place if asked to. (Just my thoughts, I am by no means a sociology expert.) Johnny ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
Doing the work in the ID Schemas project was a good idea 3 months ago and 6 months ago. So far not much has happened there. I agree that having several groups do the same thing is undesirable, but we do need to get moving. We need URIs for moving attributes today. We can wait for the metadata [1] to get defined, and the members of the ID Schema group are the right people for that.[2] While it is desirable that there is only one definition of an attribute, and some people may define the same attribute through lack of knowledge of each other. The attribute meta data model proposed[1] allows for one definition to reference another definition to consolidate attribute definitions. Additionally, getting everyone to agree on the syntax will be hard. The model allows different people to define attributes in different ways. The market will decide then what works best through use. btw: Currently there is no consistent, extensible, self describing attribute schema system out there that I know of, or anyone in the ID Schema Working group knows of. We can start to define attributes in the openid.net namespace and then reference more authorative URIs when they exist. This would let the OpenID community define the immediately required attributes for people to implement and deploy AX, which will likely increase awareness [1] http://openid.net/specs/identity-attribute-metadata-1_0-01.html [2] Of course we have all the issues of IPR etc. at the ID Schema working group since it would be unclear what organization would be managing that spec. Over here in the OpenID community we are working to resolve that, so perhaps the ID Schema people could participate in a list hosted at openid.net? -- Dick On 4-Apr-07, at 10:27 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: +1 to defining attribute identifier URIs/XRIs in the Identity Commons ID Schemas project. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:16 PM To: Johnny Bufu Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) Johnny, I see a lot of, at least my initial confusion, coming from there being multiple documents. This is why I urge merging the transport and metadata since the reality is they currently are only being used with each other. As the metadata document doesn't actually define a new format, rather references existing formats, I am unsure why it cannot just be a section in the transport document. It is understood that you must use the metadata format for the schema URLs in the transport, so the two documents really are coupled to begin with. I agree that you need to bootstrap a set of attributes for people using AX. As I have done so in the past, I'd encourage this work happen within the ID Schemas project (http://idschemas.idcommons.net/) versus defining First Name yet again for openid.net. I have no problem with the spec listing a set of schema URLs, I just strongly feel that anything non-OpenID specific should be hosted and defined elsewhere since so many people have already done it. I do understand the need for the schema URL hosting the metadata document, which is why I am advocating this work be done as part of the ID Schemas project to provide this flexibility. --David -Original Message- From: Johnny Bufu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:39 PM To: Recordon, David Cc: Dick Hardt; OpenID specs list Subject: Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) On 4-Apr-07, at 12:18 PM, Recordon, David wrote: One thing that I do think would be worthwhile in smoothing more of this SREG/AX confusion would be adding SREG support to Sxip's OpenID libraries. This is on the todo list, and judging by the interest showed by some contributors could happen any day now. Any thoughts on spec consolidation I think I'd propose the following: - Remove http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute- types-1_0-02.html (I do not believe OpenID should define its own schema elements for things like First Name which are not specific to OpenID, defining a URL for an OpenID enabled URL for example I think would be fine on OpenID.net) I understand that point of view and we were looking into determining what would be the best place where this spec could live. However, since the AX's adoption will depend (at least in the beginning, before the metadata and automatic acquisition mechanisms are finalized) on the participants using the same names for the attributes they transfer. From this point of view, I believe AX could use openid.net's recommendation (if endorsement is too much) to use a set of names / URIs for the most commonly transfered attributes. (Kind of like what made SREG successful -- having the spec provide / something/ for a jump-start). - Merge http
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 4-Apr-07, at 1:16 PM, Recordon, David wrote: Johnny, I see a lot of, at least my initial confusion, coming from there being multiple documents. This is why I urge merging the transport and metadata since the reality is they currently are only being used with each other. As the metadata document doesn't actually define a new format, rather references existing formats, I am unsure why it cannot just be a section in the transport document. It is understood that you must use the metadata format for the schema URLs in the transport, so the two documents really are coupled to begin with. Actually it is describing a document format, and it could easily be used by other groups as evidenced by references from people in the ID Schemas group. I agree that you need to bootstrap a set of attributes for people using AX. As I have done so in the past, I'd encourage this work happen within the ID Schemas project (http://idschemas.idcommons.net/) versus defining First Name yet again for openid.net. I have no problem with the spec listing a set of schema URLs, I just strongly feel that anything non-OpenID specific should be hosted and defined elsewhere since so many people have already done it. I do understand the need for the schema URL hosting the metadata document, which is why I am advocating this work be done as part of the ID Schemas project to provide this flexibility. see my response to Drummond ... We defined a set of attributes 6 months ago under schema.openid.net. I think we have let other groups have time to do something, I'd like to get on with building and deploying stuff. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
I guess I don't see why blaming the ID Schemas project for not much happening is a good excuse for not doing it there. People who care will either have to drive this work within the OpenID project or the ID Schemas project; I fail to see how the effort required in each differs greatly. In some senses, I think if people gather as part of the ID Schemas project and try to move this work forward, it will actually be more successful than trying to do it here. Nothing done by OpenID in the past has intrinsically been easy which is why I continue to think that something being hard is not a valid reason to not do the right technical/social thing. I know that these two communities can work together, but the onus is on the OpenID AX side to make this conversation successful and drive progress. Cc'ing their list as well. --David -Original Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:00 AM To: Drummond Reed Cc: Recordon, David; 'Johnny Bufu'; 'OpenID specs list' Subject: Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) Doing the work in the ID Schemas project was a good idea 3 months ago and 6 months ago. So far not much has happened there. I agree that having several groups do the same thing is undesirable, but we do need to get moving. We need URIs for moving attributes today. We can wait for the metadata [1] to get defined, and the members of the ID Schema group are the right people for that.[2] While it is desirable that there is only one definition of an attribute, and some people may define the same attribute through lack of knowledge of each other. The attribute meta data model proposed[1] allows for one definition to reference another definition to consolidate attribute definitions. Additionally, getting everyone to agree on the syntax will be hard. The model allows different people to define attributes in different ways. The market will decide then what works best through use. btw: Currently there is no consistent, extensible, self describing attribute schema system out there that I know of, or anyone in the ID Schema Working group knows of. We can start to define attributes in the openid.net namespace and then reference more authorative URIs when they exist. This would let the OpenID community define the immediately required attributes for people to implement and deploy AX, which will likely increase awareness [1] http://openid.net/specs/identity-attribute-metadata-1_0-01.html [2] Of course we have all the issues of IPR etc. at the ID Schema working group since it would be unclear what organization would be managing that spec. Over here in the OpenID community we are working to resolve that, so perhaps the ID Schema people could participate in a list hosted at openid.net? -- Dick On 4-Apr-07, at 10:27 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: +1 to defining attribute identifier URIs/XRIs in the Identity Commons ID Schemas project. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:16 PM To: Johnny Bufu Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) Johnny, I see a lot of, at least my initial confusion, coming from there being multiple documents. This is why I urge merging the transport and metadata since the reality is they currently are only being used with each other. As the metadata document doesn't actually define a new format, rather references existing formats, I am unsure why it cannot just be a section in the transport document. It is understood that you must use the metadata format for the schema URLs in the transport, so the two documents really are coupled to begin with. I agree that you need to bootstrap a set of attributes for people using AX. As I have done so in the past, I'd encourage this work happen within the ID Schemas project (http://idschemas.idcommons.net/) versus defining First Name yet again for openid.net. I have no problem with the spec listing a set of schema URLs, I just strongly feel that anything non-OpenID specific should be hosted and defined elsewhere since so many people have already done it. I do understand the need for the schema URL hosting the metadata document, which is why I am advocating this work be done as part of the ID Schemas project to provide this flexibility. --David -Original Message- From: Johnny Bufu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:39 PM To: Recordon, David Cc: Dick Hardt; OpenID specs list Subject: Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) On 4-Apr-07, at 12:18 PM, Recordon, David wrote: One thing that I do think would be worthwhile in smoothing more of this SREG/AX confusion would be adding SREG support to Sxip's OpenID libraries. This is on the todo list, and judging by the interest showed by some contributors could
RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
Actually it is describing a document format, and it could easily be used by other groups as evidenced by references from people in the ID Schemas group. I agree that it could be, but is anyone? I love shooting beyond the 80% to get the remaining 20%, but if that is just a pipe dream then I have a hard time seeing why the documents need to be separate and thus more complex. If however this format was defined within the ID Schemas project, then that would be an easy argument as to why they should be separate. We defined a set of attributes 6 months ago under schema.openid.net. So Dick, this is part of my problem with AX. Sxip has defined a set of attributes and never gained consensus on this list that that is the right thing to do. See my other message a few minutes ago as to the rest of my thoughts. --David -Original Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:27 AM To: Recordon, David Cc: Johnny Bufu; OpenID specs list Subject: Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) On 4-Apr-07, at 1:16 PM, Recordon, David wrote: Johnny, I see a lot of, at least my initial confusion, coming from there being multiple documents. This is why I urge merging the transport and metadata since the reality is they currently are only being used with each other. As the metadata document doesn't actually define a new format, rather references existing formats, I am unsure why it cannot just be a section in the transport document. It is understood that you must use the metadata format for the schema URLs in the transport, so the two documents really are coupled to begin with. Actually it is describing a document format, and it could easily be used by other groups as evidenced by references from people in the ID Schemas group. I agree that you need to bootstrap a set of attributes for people using AX. As I have done so in the past, I'd encourage this work happen within the ID Schemas project (http://idschemas.idcommons.net/) versus defining First Name yet again for openid.net. I have no problem with the spec listing a set of schema URLs, I just strongly feel that anything non-OpenID specific should be hosted and defined elsewhere since so many people have already done it. I do understand the need for the schema URL hosting the metadata document, which is why I am advocating this work be done as part of the ID Schemas project to provide this flexibility. see my response to Drummond ... We defined a set of attributes 6 months ago under schema.openid.net. I think we have let other groups have time to do something, I'd like to get on with building and deploying stuff. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 5-Apr-07, at 9:06 AM, Recordon, David wrote: Actually it is describing a document format, and it could easily be used by other groups as evidenced by references from people in the ID Schemas group. I agree that it could be, but is anyone? It leaves the option open. I love shooting beyond the 80% to get the remaining 20%, but if that is just a pipe dream then I have a hard time seeing why the documents need to be separate and thus more complex. An RP does not need to worry about the metadata, so it is much easier for an RP to implement if they don't need to look at the other document. I don't think this is really that important of a point given all the other things we need to do. People are doing to do things different then you would, but get the same result -- is that ok? We defined a set of attributes 6 months ago under schema.openid.net. So Dick, this is part of my problem with AX. Sxip has defined a set of attributes and never gained consensus on this list that that is the right thing to do. We wanted to publish them on the website so that other people could look at them, but you did not want to do that, and you control the domain. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On Apr 5, 2007, at 9:02, Recordon, David wrote: In some senses, I think if people gather as part of the ID Schemas project and try to move this work forward, it will actually be more successful than trying to do it here. I would agree with this. Johannes Ernst NetMesh Inc. http://netmesh.info/jernst ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
If you would let us put the attributes on the website, then other people could see them and comment on them. On 5-Apr-07, at 9:02 AM, Recordon, David wrote: I guess I don't see why blaming the ID Schemas project for not much happening is a good excuse for not doing it there. Blame? ... just stating a fact. People who care will either have to drive this work within the OpenID project or the ID Schemas project; I fail to see how the effort required in each differs greatly. In some senses, I think if people gather as part of the ID Schemas project and try to move this work forward, it will actually be more successful than trying to do it here. People have not gathered and done work on the ID Schemas project to date. People are now gathering on the OpenID list around AX -- so let's use that momentum. I stated several reasons why it makes sense to do it here. Nothing done by OpenID in the past has intrinsically been easy which is why I continue to think that something being hard is not a valid reason to not do the right technical/social thing. I know that these two communities can work together, but the onus is on the OpenID AX side to make this conversation successful and drive progress. Oh, so if we add MORE people to the mix it will be easier!!! :-) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
On 4-Apr-07, at 12:18 PM, Recordon, David wrote: One thing that I do think would be worthwhile in smoothing more of this SREG/AX confusion would be adding SREG support to Sxip's OpenID libraries. This is on the todo list, and judging by the interest showed by some contributors could happen any day now. Any thoughts on spec consolidation I think I'd propose the following: - Remove http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute- types-1_0-02.html (I do not believe OpenID should define its own schema elements for things like First Name which are not specific to OpenID, defining a URL for an OpenID enabled URL for example I think would be fine on OpenID.net) I understand that point of view and we were looking into determining what would be the best place where this spec could live. However, since the AX's adoption will depend (at least in the beginning, before the metadata and automatic acquisition mechanisms are finalized) on the participants using the same names for the attributes they transfer. From this point of view, I believe AX could use openid.net's recommendation (if endorsement is too much) to use a set of names / URIs for the most commonly transfered attributes. (Kind of like what made SREG successful -- having the spec provide / something/ for a jump-start). - Merge http://openid.net/specs/identity-attribute- metadata-1_0-01.html into http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute-exchange-1_0-04.html. I don't think we should merge the AX core with the metadata description document. The first one describes the transport layer for attributes and is reasonably close to a final v1, while the metadata is far from being final (no concrete options identified that would drive to consensus) and its progress is rather slow. and seperating policy from technology? Not sure what you mean by this. Johnny ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)
+1 to defining attribute identifier URIs/XRIs in the Identity Commons ID Schemas project. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:16 PM To: Johnny Bufu Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) Johnny, I see a lot of, at least my initial confusion, coming from there being multiple documents. This is why I urge merging the transport and metadata since the reality is they currently are only being used with each other. As the metadata document doesn't actually define a new format, rather references existing formats, I am unsure why it cannot just be a section in the transport document. It is understood that you must use the metadata format for the schema URLs in the transport, so the two documents really are coupled to begin with. I agree that you need to bootstrap a set of attributes for people using AX. As I have done so in the past, I'd encourage this work happen within the ID Schemas project (http://idschemas.idcommons.net/) versus defining First Name yet again for openid.net. I have no problem with the spec listing a set of schema URLs, I just strongly feel that anything non-OpenID specific should be hosted and defined elsewhere since so many people have already done it. I do understand the need for the schema URL hosting the metadata document, which is why I am advocating this work be done as part of the ID Schemas project to provide this flexibility. --David -Original Message- From: Johnny Bufu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:39 PM To: Recordon, David Cc: Dick Hardt; OpenID specs list Subject: Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback) On 4-Apr-07, at 12:18 PM, Recordon, David wrote: One thing that I do think would be worthwhile in smoothing more of this SREG/AX confusion would be adding SREG support to Sxip's OpenID libraries. This is on the todo list, and judging by the interest showed by some contributors could happen any day now. Any thoughts on spec consolidation I think I'd propose the following: - Remove http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute- types-1_0-02.html (I do not believe OpenID should define its own schema elements for things like First Name which are not specific to OpenID, defining a URL for an OpenID enabled URL for example I think would be fine on OpenID.net) I understand that point of view and we were looking into determining what would be the best place where this spec could live. However, since the AX's adoption will depend (at least in the beginning, before the metadata and automatic acquisition mechanisms are finalized) on the participants using the same names for the attributes they transfer. From this point of view, I believe AX could use openid.net's recommendation (if endorsement is too much) to use a set of names / URIs for the most commonly transfered attributes. (Kind of like what made SREG successful -- having the spec provide / something/ for a jump-start). - Merge http://openid.net/specs/identity-attribute- metadata-1_0-01.html into http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute-exchange-1_0-04.html. I don't think we should merge the AX core with the metadata description document. The first one describes the transport layer for attributes and is reasonably close to a final v1, while the metadata is far from being final (no concrete options identified that would drive to consensus) and its progress is rather slow. and seperating policy from technology? Not sure what you mean by this. Johnny ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
