<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS PGothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS PGothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"MS PGothic","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>
-- Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> David Recordon
[mailto:recordond@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nat Sakimura<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mike Jones; specs-council@openid.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>To update Nat's note, the
proposal is actually at <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>
(the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Nat Sakimura <<a
href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The most current version is here: <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0</a><br>
<br>
Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output of
this WG.<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
Mike Jones wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on
this spec…<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[Deleted the rest of the
thread to bring the message below the current 40K list size limit]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>