RE: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
To be clear, what I have suggested is not the bulk exchange of multiple users. It is the method to treat number of attributes as a group that requires some integrity within them. When it comes to CX, by design, it does not do multi user exchane either since it requires the parties to explicitly sign the contract. The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec. The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines. I think that Nat’s description above is a general requirement and makes sense to be in scope. To clarify, bulk movement of attributes from different users is not in scope – grouping attributes together would be in scope (I’m interested in this functionality) Anyone have a concern with that? - Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@microsoft.com wrote: 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included in this WG or in a different one?) I'm ok either way. 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of attributes about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very different design pattern then what AX does now. I have not seen the background on why this is in scope, so perhaps I can have a different view if someone cares to enlighten me. When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he included scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes, and it was felt that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk exchange functionality and again because it pertained to attributes, it was believed that it would better fit here. The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec. The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines. -- Dick PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions. -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
=...@tokyo via iPhone On 2009/02/04, at 7:39, Breno de Medeiros br...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@microsoft.com wrote: 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included in this WG or in a different one?) I'm ok either way. 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of attributes about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very different design pattern then what AX does now. I have not seen the background on why this is in scope, so perhaps I can have a different view if someone cares to enlighten me. When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he included scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes, and it was felt that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk exchange functionality and again because it pertained to attributes, it was believed that it would better fit here. To be clear, what I have suggested is not the bulk exchange of multiple users. It is the method to treat number of attributes as a group that requires some integrity within them. When it comes to CX, by design, it does not do multi user exchane either since it requires the parties to explicitly sign the contract. The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec. The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines. -- Dick PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions. -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
Thanks for the feedback Breno! Nat: can you provide some illumination? I see that CX would define attribute types to be carried in AX. I'm confused about the scenario where information from multiple users would be transmitted as that implies that the protocol no longer is dealing with a single subject. -Dick From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:br...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:39 PM To: Dick Hardt Cc: da...@sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura; OpenID Specs Mailing List Subject: Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@microsoft.commailto:dick.ha...@microsoft.com wrote: 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included in this WG or in a different one?) I'm ok either way. 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of attributes about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very different design pattern then what AX does now. I have not seen the background on why this is in scope, so perhaps I can have a different view if someone cares to enlighten me. When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he included scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes, and it was felt that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk exchange functionality and again because it pertained to attributes, it was believed that it would better fit here. The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec. The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines. -- Dick PS: please use my microsoft.comhttp://microsoft.com address for any specs discussions. -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
