<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); ">Option 2) is good for me. I'm on an airplane most of 1/15, and won't be able to make 1), even if moved back or forward a bit.<div>
<br></div><div>-Mike</div></span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Tatsuki Sakushima <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Dear all,<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:<br>
><br>
> 1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br>
> 10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<br>
> 7:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
<br></div>
On Thursday, there is a XRI TC telecon that many of us join. Therefore, I suggested a hour moved back on 1). The new schedule is below:<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
1) 3:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br></div>
11:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
8:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
<br></div>
Sorry for members in Europe. I might be hard to join it at this hour.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tatsuki<br>
<br>
Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br></div>
TEL:(650)638-7258<br>
SkypeIn:(650)209-4811<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
(1/14/09 1:45 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(The options of the schedules have the same number. I send the<br>
collection and please discard the previous one.)<br>
<br>
Dear the Specifications Council members (especially David and Mike) and<br>
the proposers of the CX WG,<br>
<br>
Upon the request of scheduling a call by Nat, I'd like to invite all the<br>
members of the spec council and the CX WG proposers to a teleconference<br>
to discuss how to solve the charter clarification and scope concerns<br>
pointed out by the spec council.<br>
<br>
I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:<br>
<br>
1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br>
10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<br>
7:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
<br>
2) 2:00pm on 1/16(PST)<br>
10:00pm on 1/16(GMT)<br>
7:00am on 1/17(JST)<br>
<br>
Please reply this message and specify the option that you prefer. Based<br>
on replies from all participants who intend to join, I'll set up a<br>
conference bridge and email them the information.<br>
<br>
In the OIDFSC mailing list, David already stated and explained concerns<br>
about the previous charter submitted by Nat:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000045.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000045.html</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000046.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000046.html</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000027.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000027.html</a><br>
<br>
I think that the goal of this telecon is:<br>
<br>
a) For the proposers to clarify points of concerns raised by the council<br>
and explain intentions of the WG.<br>
b) For the spec council to provide concrete suggestions to make the<br>
charter comfortable and reasonable to the spec council and the community .<br>
<br>
If you have any comments or concerns on this message, please let me know.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tatsuki<br>
<br>
Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br>
<br>
(1/13/09 12:15 AM), Nat Sakimura wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Tatsuki,<br>
<br>
Could you kindly set-up a followup call, please?<br>
<br>
In the mean time though, I would like to ask spec council members for the response towards the answers given by the proposers to your concerns. Any concrete suggestion to make it acceptable to the spec council is also welcome. It's a wiki, after all.<br>
<br>
As to the "community support", it would probably depend on what "community".<br>
The proposers are probably talking of higher value transaction users, and if we do it in timely manner, I am pretty confident that it will have some traction, but it needs to happen fast. If we take too much time, the opportunity will go away from OpenID.<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
2009/1/1 Drummond Reed <<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net" target="_blank">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net" target="_blank">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a>>><br>
<br>
David,<br>
<br>
First, I agree with Henrik's comments (see his separate email).<br>
Second, to say, "I do not believe that it currently has sufficient<br>
support within the OpenID community to succeed", did you see the<br>
list of proposers for this workgroup?<br>
<br>
* Drummond Reed, <a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com" target="_blank">drummond.reed@parity.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com" target="_blank">drummond.reed@parity.com</a>>, Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)<br>
* Henrik Biering, <a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com" target="_blank">hb@netamia.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com" target="_blank">hb@netamia.com</a>>,<br>
Netamia (Denmark)<br>
* Hideki Nara, <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp" target="_blank">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp" target="_blank">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>>,<br>
Tact Communications (Japan)<br>
* John Bradeley, <a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com" target="_blank">jbradley@mac.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com" target="_blank">jbradley@mac.com</a>>,<br>
OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)<br>
* Mike Graves, <a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com" target="_blank">mgraves@janrain.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com" target="_blank">mgraves@janrain.com</a>>,<br>
JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
* Nat Sakimura, <a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp" target="_blank">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp" target="_blank">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>>, Nomura Research Institute,<br>
Ltd.(Japan)<br>
* Robert Ott, <a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com" target="_blank">robert.ott@clavid.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com" target="_blank">robert.ott@clavid.com</a>>, Clavid (Switzerland)<br>
* Tatsuki Sakushima, <a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com" target="_blank">tatsuki@nri.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com" target="_blank">tatsuki@nri.com</a>>,<br>
NRI America, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
* Toru Yamaguchi, <a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com" target="_blank">trymch@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com" target="_blank">trymch@gmail.com</a>>,<br>
Cybozu Labs (Japan)<br>
<br>
In short, my first reaction to reading your email was to think,<br>
"Wow, here it is, the first example of OpenID turning into W3C and<br>
IETF and every other standards organization that turns into a small<br>
group of insiders trying to control innovation!"<br>
<br>
Of course I think you, more than almost anyone, can appreciate the<br>
irony of that thought C I believe it was to avoid that very<br>
situation that the OIDF was created, no?<br>
<br>
So if we DON'T want that to happen, I think what we need to do ASAP<br>
is turn this into a constructive dialog between the proposers of<br>
this Working Group and the Specs Council about how the charter might<br>
be amended to addess some of your concerns. (I'm not commenting yet<br>
on your specific concerns, other than to say that I agree with some<br>
and not with others.)<br>
<br>
I suspect email is going to be much too slow for such a dialog, so I<br>
would suggest that Nat and Tatksuki set up a telecon between the<br>
Working Group proposers and the Specs Council members. I would also<br>
suggest that before such a telecon, the Specs Council get together<br>
and collectively list their issues with the Charter on the Working<br>
Group Charter page. I have added a section for this purpose:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1#cSpecificationCouncilIssues" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1#cSpecificationCouncilIssues</a> <br>
<br>
It may be that all the Specs Council members agree with your four<br>
points below, in which case you can just wholesale copy them into<br>
the wiki page. However it is very important that the Specs Council<br>
come to it's own consensus about the issues it has with the charter,<br>
because without that, the WG proposers have no hope of addressing<br>
these issues, either with counterarguments or with potential amendments.<br>
<br>
Listing the issues there also enables us to have a more focused<br>
discussion than email alone by using comments directly on the wiki page.<br>
<br>
=Drummond<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
*From:* David Recordon [mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com" target="_blank">recordond@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com" target="_blank">recordond@gmail.com</a>>]<br>
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:33 AM<br>
*To:* Nat Sakimura<br>
*Cc:* <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net" target="_blank">specs-council@openid.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net" target="_blank">specs-council@openid.net</a>>;<br>
Josh Hoyt; Tatsuki Sakushima; John Bradley; <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp" target="_blank">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp" target="_blank">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>>; Robert Ott; Michael Graves; Henrik<br>
Biering; Drummond Reed; Nat Sakimura; ɽڏ<br>
<br>
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
<br>
Hi Nat,<br>
<br>
I read Josh's email as agreeing with Mike's statement of:<br>
<br>
The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject<br>
this proposal to create a working group because the charter is<br>
excessively broad, it seems to propose the creation of new<br>
mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do accomplish<br>
existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is<br>
not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms<br>
such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires<br>
breaking changes to these underlying protocols.<br>
<br>
<br>
While you have clarified that you don't intend to create a new XML<br>
signature mechanism, OAuth describes a mechanism to use public keys<br>
to sign these sorts of parameters. Signatures aside, as Mike said<br>
other aspects of the charter seem quite broad and it is unclear how<br>
it will build upon AX 1.0 and other underlying existing OpenID<br>
technologies.<br>
<br>
Given the draft charter at<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>:<br>
1) The purpose of producing a series of extensions seems too broad. OpenID was born on the idea of doing one simple thing and we've seen<br>
success with OpenID and related technologies when they are made up<br>
of small pieces loosely joined. OpenID Authentication 2.0 broke<br>
this rule in some areas and we're now seeing the repercussions of<br>
doing so.<br>
<br>
2) In what jurisdictions are these contracts legally binding? Is<br>
"arbitrary parties to create and exchange a<br>
mutually-digitally-signed legally binding 'contract'" a justifiable<br>
statement or should it be toned down? It should also be kept in<br>
mind that since OpenID's creation it has been very clear that OpenID<br>
does not provide trust, but rather trust can be built on top of<br>
identity. I'm not saying that OpenID should never deal with trust,<br>
just trying to understand if this Working Group intends to change<br>
how OpenID currently does not create this form of trust.<br>
<br>
3) The purpose says that the Working Group intends to possibly<br>
extend AX and create a series of specifications. It does not seem<br>
prudent to give a Working Group the ability to arbitrarily extend an<br>
existing extension or create an unlimited number of specifications.<br>
<br>
4) The Scope section is still not clear as to what the Working Group<br>
will actually be producing. I would prefer to see the section<br>
rewritten, maybe mimicking the structure currently being considered<br>
for the specification.<br>
<br>
As to if you wish to force this proposal forward, I do not believe<br>
that it currently has sufficient support within the OpenID community<br>
to succeed and that its broad scope contravenes the community's<br>
purpose. This is why I'm really hoping that the proposal can be<br>
refined to something which will be successful that a broad community<br>
can get behind!<br>
<br>
--David<br>
<br>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Josh,<br>
To which statement did you agree?<br>
<br>
There has been a several things that has been pointed out, but I<br>
think I have answered to them.<br>
For example, for XML Sig, I have stated that this spec is not for<br>
XML, etc.<br>
For modularization, yes, that is a possibility but a scope needs to<br>
be able to cover a field that it requires, even if it ends up not<br>
covering that field.<br>
It is impossible to widen the scope though narrowing it down at a<br>
later date is easy.<br>
Unfortunately, I have not heard back any concrete response<br>
for amendments. It would be more constructive to have those.<br>
Also, if you are giving advise to the membership an recommendation<br>
for not approving it, you need to state the reasons concretely.<br>
It needs to be one of<br>
(a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with 4.1);<br>
(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID<br>
community's purpose;<br>
(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient<br>
support to succeed<br>
<br>
or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected<br>
completion dates; or<br>
(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal<br>
liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
and should state why the proposal falls into one of the criteria<br>
concretely and accountably.<br>
Regards,<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Josh Hoyt <<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com" target="_blank">josh@janrain.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com" target="_blank">josh@janrain.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones<br>
<br>
<<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com" target="_blank">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com" target="_blank">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I realize it was Christmas week but it's been a week and we've<br>
heard nothing<br>
> from any of the other specs council members on this proposal (or<br>
the other<br>
> one as well).<br>
<br>
I agree with the statement that you made about this proposal.<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>