[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

[David Recordon]

I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first
approach Nat to see if the charter can be made to address these concerns and
then resubmitted for review.

--David

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or
> specific in many respects.  One of my concerns is the same as David's below
> – when XMLDSIG and other signature algorithms already exist, it is incumbent
> upon the proposers to justify the creation of yet another, incompatible
> signature algorithm.
>
>
>
> It is therefore my recommendation that the specifications council
> communicate something like this position to the membership to guide their
> vote about this working group:
>
>
>
> The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this
> proposal to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad,
> it seems to propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create
> new ways to do accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it
> the proposal is not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing
> mechanisms such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires
> breaking changes to these underlying protocols.
>
>
>
> We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a
> recommendation prior to the membership vote.  My stab at our recommendation
> is above.  Wordsmithing welcome.  If you disagree, please supply alternate
> wording that you think we should use instead.
>
>
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Recordon [mailto:recordond at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM
> *To:* Nat Sakimura
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; specs-council at openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
>
>
>
> To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1 (the wiki
> doesn't like periods in URLs).
>
> While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels
> nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and
> scope.  For example, the scope says that the working group will develop "A
> Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't it
> already defined how to sign chunks of XML?  Why would the working group be
> developing a new signature mechanism?
>
> --David
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
> wrote:
>
> The most current version is here:
> http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0
>
> Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output
> of this WG.
>
> =nat
>
> Mike Jones wrote:
>
>
> Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work
> on this spec…
>
>  [Deleted the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current
> 40K list size limit]
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/attachments/20081223/179b2c82/attachment.htm