RE: OpenID Email Discovery

2008-01-04 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

2007-10-22 Thread Gabe Wachob
Dick is right here regarding the certainty that an IPR policy provides with respect to patent. And IPR policy can never ensure that everyone in the world will refrain from making patent claims. With regards to patent, an IPR policy and procedure can only really affect those who choose to be

RE: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

2007-10-22 Thread Gabe Wachob
-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

RE: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

2007-10-22 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

2007-10-19 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: Using dots in HTTP request parameters

2007-09-14 Thread Gabe Wachob
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-

RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification

2007-05-17 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: Java RP

2007-04-11 Thread Gabe Wachob
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:

RE: Promoting OpenID

2007-04-03 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: Features for Future Versions

2007-04-02 Thread Gabe Wachob
p style=tone:caution Before we get into the discussions on this list (and hopefully elsewhere), it would be great if you (and anyone else contributing) could make a clear IPR statement about your intent with this new functionality. If you wanted to use Microsoft's Open Specification Promise as a

Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

2007-02-28 Thread Gabe Wachob
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,

CROSS POSTING :-(

2007-01-22 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-21 Thread Gabe Wachob
, 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

RE: [OpenID] Opened IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-12 Thread 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

RE: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-08 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: OpenID IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-07 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: OpenID IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-07 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft

2006-12-07 Thread Gabe Wachob
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

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Gabe Wachob
*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