I am in full agreement. Indeed, the proposed charter for the WG has always indicated that the deliverable would be a guidance document, not a separate spec.
It should be up to the 2.1 authentication WG to later decide if the guidance document should be published as a separate spec, or if instead it should be incorporated in part or as a whole in the authentication core spec, or any other disposition that is suitable. I think we all understand that discovery is too close to the core that it should be standardized by the authentication WG. On the other hand, the set of problems (and scope for changes) in discovery is quite different from authentication, and that is the rationale to allow this WG to form. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM, David Recordon <da...@sixapart.com> wrote: > Hey Breno,I think this is a good point and judging from this thread > already, there seems to be a group of people really interested in working on > discovery for OpenID. If we can frame the working group in the right way > (David Fuelling framed it well as "I guess I'm more of the opinion that the > 2.1 Discovery WG is going to produce a "guidance document" about 2.1 > Discovery") then I think it should be a good thing. That said, let's do a > really good job of defining the goals. > > I'll spend some time going over the wiki page WG proposal this week. > > --David > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > > And I agree with you. My view is that in the absence of an OpenID discovery > WG there will be _more_ uncertainty about future directions for the spec, > not less. > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM, David Fuelling <sappe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Breno de Medeiros <br...@google.com>wrote: >> >>> If we start the process to form a WG for discovery now, most likely the >>> process would only be completed in 6 months, even if there was considerable >>> agreement and stable technologies to draw from. >>> >>> Right now, there is quite a bit of momentum and excitement about >>> Webfinger. The XRI TC is hoping to publish draft specs for XRD withing the >>> next 30 days. Concurrently, and in particular after that, it is hoped that >>> progress on webfinger will be speedy. Webfinger spec discussion may take >>> place at either XRI TC or IETF. >>> >> >> Even if webfinger does become its own spec, I'm not confident it will be >> end up looking the same in the context of OpenID (there are thorny issues >> like Authority to contend with: e.g., what system is the meta-data authority >> for an email address? DNS? Web (Host-meta?)? Both? Something-else? >> >> I guess my opinion is that this work needs to happen in both places, so >> why not start it here as well. >> >> Should we just start responding to all threads about OpenID 2.x discovery >>> by saying that the discussion is taking place at some other mailing list? >> >> >> Last point to reiterate: There are a lot of Discovery issues besides email >> addresses and XRD. See the wiki for more. >> >> >> > > > -- > --Breno > > +1 (650) 214-1007 desk > +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) > MTV-41-3 : 383-A > PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) > > > -- --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
