*If* we are going to open up the terminology discussion, for me the terms
authenticating party (formerly the IDP) and accepting party (formerly
the relying party) seem more descriptive. The authenticating party issues
authentication assertions in the form of special HTTP request/responses with
produced in each body.
They actually don't differ much beyond this, however, and the spirit of the
respective IPR policies are converging.
-Gabe
_
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:20 AM
To: Gabe Wachob; Brett
Actually, the language was changed from post to a list, not subscribe to
a list for this very reason.
Our intent was to come up with another simple trigger that didn't involve a
lot of process (and was clear and not subject to much interpretation) and
decided that this was a reasonable first cut
Ben-
I'm not sure what you are suggesting is the problem - is this just a
matter of timing? That is, could we remedy your issue by saying that you
have to issue the license before a certain event? This language is pretty
common - I'm not sure what else a policy could say?
Are you
community focus we have.
-Gabe
-Original Message-
From: James A. Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Gabe Wachob
Cc: 'Martin Atkins'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft
Gabe Wachob
Well said Phill.
We'd like to take an off-the-shelf policy that is comes with an
off-the-shelf process (the two are very intertwined) that produces
specifications that can be taken to more established SDOs. Once this thing
exists, this IPR discussion can be very much quicker.
As you've noted in
, 2006 11:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Gabe Wachob
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft
So just circling back on this, summarizing the key points I saw from the
discussion.
1) We can't directly take the IPR Policy from a SDO (such as the W3C)
and use
This is getting a little insane - many of us are subscribed to the four
lists that this thread has been posted to.
One person has suggested that we actually consolidate the separate lists
given the overlap in membership and topics (at least the openid lists). The
other option is to be more
I'm trying to follow this while at ETEL - not all of us can keep up with
this list on a minute-by-minute basis ;-)
Here's a proposal for a modular OpenID Discovery Spec, which I'll volunteer
to help edit since I am responsible for the XRI resolution spec and the XRDS
document format.
Basically,
More likely that the people promoting OpenID to large organizations are
vendors and don't particularly want to tell their competitors what they are
doing.
Now, imagine if there were like-minded vendors getting together to form some
sort of marketing organization to promote OpenID to a variety of
Hans-
I didn't see XRI support in joid - was I mistaken?
-Gabe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Granqvist, Hans
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Dick Hardt; McGovern, James F ((HTSC, IT))
Cc:
BTW, we (the XRI TC cochairs) finally (!) came to agreement at IIW to
publish the current draft of the XRI Res spec as a citeable committee spec
so the issue about XRI specs being in draft form and unciteable goes away.
That is, we'll hold a TC vote on what has already been implemented by the
Not sure it matters in the O* environments, but using _ in http links has
traditionally been frowned upon because it when rendered as underlined text
(as an HTML link), the underscores disappeared and made it look like a space
was present in the link.
-Gabe
-Original Message-
I've already suggested that to the OAuth community and they are heartily
taking up that suggestion...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pat Patterson
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:36 PM
To: Johannes Ernst
Cc: specs@openid.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Kevin Turner
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:34 PM
To: specs
Subject: Re: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:12 -0700, Johannes Ernst wrote:
[...] and after they had
To: Gabe Wachob
Cc: Kevin Turner; specs
Subject: Re: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress
On 10/22/07, Gabe Wachob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) the community calls the spec final and a contributor raises a
potential
patent infringement issue, and since the community has already
implemented
I'm sorry, Phillip, we're not going to let you get away with that one.
Drummond already asked you about what you are talking about w/r/t IPR
commitments, and I haven't seen a reply. All IPR commitments for XRI are in
place and have been for quite a while. I encourage you to review the RF on
17 matches
Mail list logo
