Proposal to create the TX working group
Dear Specification Council members: In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are: ** *Trust Exchange (TX) Extension WG Charter* In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are: Proposal: (a) Charter. (i) WG name: Trust Exchange Extension (TX) (ii) Purpose: The purpose of this WG is to produce a standard OpenID extension to the OpenID Authentication protocol that enables arbitrary parties to create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed legally binding contract. This protocol extension aims to be both broadband and mobile friendly by definingappropriatebindings for each use case. Although this specification defines one default protocol for transfering data based on the contract, the data transfer portion is intended to be pluggable so that other protocols may also be used for this purpose. The extension is not intended to be a general method for defining attributes; the scope is limited to a specific set of attributes necessary for contract semantics. The extension will also define a contract signature based on public key cryptography. When used with a digital certificate signed by a third party, the contract and signature can be used as an assertion of conformance to an applicable assurance program. (iii) Scope: Scope of the work * Development of the specification including: o An extensible tag-value contract format o Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method applied to the above contract format o Query/response communication protocols for establishing the contract o Default data transfer protocol based on the contract o Conformance requirements for other data transfer protocol bindings * Security, threats and Risk analysis o Perform Security Risk analysis and profiles for best practice Out of scope * Term negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a contract should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications. * General purpose data type identifiers: this should be determined on a per-community bases using other specifications such as OpenID Attribute Exchange. * Assurance programs or other identity governance frameworks. * It is the intent that this specification be usable by any trust community, whether it uses conventional PKI hierarchies, peer-to-peer trust mechanisms, reputation systems, or other forms of trust assurance. The specification of any particular trust root, trust hierarchy, or trust policy is explicitly out of scope. (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: TX 1.0, spec completion expected in January 2009. (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties, especially those who require security and accountability features to exchange sensitive customer information (e.g. personally identifiable information and credit card numbers) responsibly among trusted parties. (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 possibly face-to-face meetings at conferences. (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed: Draft 1 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 by other WGs or organizations: * LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework (IGF) 1.0 Draft http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/content/download/4329/28939/file/liberty-igf-draft-1.0-2008-06-21.zip * XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES) http://www.w3.org/TR/XAdES/ (ii) Proposers: Drummond Reed, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A) Henrik Biering, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Netamia (Denmark) Hideki Nara, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tact Communications (Japan) John Bradeley, [EMAIL PROTECTED], OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada) Mike Graves, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.) Nat Sakimura, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.(Japan) Robert Ott, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Clavid (Switzerland) Tatsuki Sakushima, [EMAIL
Re: Proposal to create the TX working group
Hey Nat, Do you see this as being built atop Attribute Exchange for transport or as something new that TX defines? I know Sxip had done work with AX to enable passing signed and encrypted attributes using SAML assertions. Is Trust Exchange really the best name? Seems like trust is quite a broad concept so something more specific might be better. --David On Oct 31, 2008, at 4:21 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote: Dear Specification Council members: In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are: Trust Exchange (TX) Extension WG Charter In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures this note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to produce an OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the specifics of the proposed working group are: Proposal: (a) Charter. (i) WG name: Trust Exchange Extension (TX) (ii) Purpose: The purpose of this WG is to produce a standard OpenID extension to the OpenID Authentication protocol that enables arbitrary parties to create and exchange a mutually-digitally-signed legally binding contract. This protocol extension aims to be both broadband and mobile friendly by defining appropriate bindings for each use case. Although this specification defines one default protocol for transfering data based on the contract, the data transfer portion is intended to be pluggable so that other protocols may also be used for this purpose. The extension is not intended to be a general method for defining attributes; the scope is limited to a specific set of attributes necessary for contract semantics. The extension will also define a contract signature based on public key cryptography. When used with a digital certificate signed by a third party, the contract and signature can be used as an assertion of conformance to an applicable assurance program. (iii) Scope: Scope of the work Development of the specification including: An extensible tag-value contract format Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method applied to the above contract format Query/response communication protocols for establishing the contract Default data transfer protocol based on the contract Conformance requirements for other data transfer protocol bindings Security, threats and Risk analysis Perform Security Risk analysis and profiles for best practice Out of scope Term negotiation: Actual negotiation of the terms of a contract should be dealt with out-of-band or by other specifications. General purpose data type identifiers: this should be determined on a per-community bases using other specifications such as OpenID Attribute Exchange. Assurance programs or other identity governance frameworks. It is the intent that this specification be usable by any trust community, whether it uses conventional PKI hierarchies, peer-to- peer trust mechanisms, reputation systems, or other forms of trust assurance. The specification of any particular trust root, trust hierarchy, or trust policy is explicitly out of scope. (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: TX 1.0, spec completion expected in January 2009. (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties, especially those who require security and accountability features to exchange sensitive customer information (e.g. personally identifiable information and credit card numbers) responsibly among trusted parties. (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 possibly face-to- face meetings at conferences. (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed: Draft 1 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 by other WGs or organizations: LIberty Alliance Identity Governance Framework (IGF) 1.0 Draft XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES) (ii) Proposers: Drummond Reed, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A) Henrik Biering, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Netamia (Denmark) Hideki Nara, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tact Communications (Japan) John Bradeley, [EMAIL PROTECTED], OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada) Mike Graves, [EMAIL PROTECTED], JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.) Nat Sakimura, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.(Japan) Robert Ott, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clavid (Switzerland) Tatsuki Sakushima,
