Thanks Mike. Actually, there is only one point in the IPR contribution agreement that is making my process on halt. After a careful study, to me, it became apparent that the non-assertion is only for the WGs that we join, but my legal dept. wants it clarified explicitly by adding such a sentence. (I have sent their draft couple of weeks ago to Bill.)
=nat Mike Jones wrote: > I'll be glad to have you on board! All you'll have to do is have NRI submit > the IPR contribution agreement once the working group is approved (and join > OIDF if you haven't yet) and then you'll be a member of the working group. > > If there are specific questions about IPR process that you have I'd be glad > to try to answer them for you as one of the authors of the doc. > > Best wishes, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process > > That's great. > > I actually want to join the PAPE WG as well. Only the issue is that the > IPR process doc is rather hard to read especially for foreginers and am > having some trouble with my legal department... > > =nat > > Mike Jones wrote: > >> And I'll commit to chronicling the issues and confusions that arise >> during the PAPE spec process as input to this doc. >> >> >> >> As you know, I'm starting the PAPE working group for two reasons (1) to >> finish a spec that I believe is important, and also (2) to debug the >> OpenID specification process. J >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On >> Behalf Of *Bill Washburn >> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2008 11:19 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> Thanks Drummond for asking about this. Obviously it will be valuable to >> get this done and I recall the Board expressed the determination to make >> this happen in the first part of 2008. I will certainly be the >> coordinator, editor, facilitator and such. >> >> cheers, >> -bill >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Drummond Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:18:51 PM >> Subject: [OpenID board] Plain-English writeup of IPR process >> >> On our http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page, it says: >> >> >> >> “We are committed to provide “common language” summaries of >> our legal documents soon and anyone who has an interest in helping make >> this happen, please send email to Bill Washburn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). >> >> >> >> In working through the setup of the PAPE working group, we got a clear >> picture of how badly this is needed. While it’s possibly for an insider >> like Mike to decode the magic ring to figure out how a working group >> needs to set up and operate, to an average OpenID developer that wants >> to propose/pursue a new spec, it would be a huge uphill climb (let alone >> someone on the outside looking in just wanting to understand the OpenID >> IPR process). >> >> >> >> After Ben Laurie of Google, one of the proposers of the proposed PAPE >> working group, pointed this out to Mike and the rest of the proposers, >> it seemed it would be a good use of resources – and our stewardship of >> IPR for the OpenID community – to hire a writer to organize our IPR >> docs and create a simple, plain-English description of the process that >> anyone interested in working group could follow. One thought might be >> for he/she to do this on the OpenID.net <http://OpenID.net> wiki so that >> we can continue to add notes about best practices and pitfalls to avoid. >> >> >> >> What do folks think of this? If there is a sentiment to do it, the next >> step might be for Bill to coordinate a requirements list (it should only >> be a half-page of bullet points – I’d be happy to help with it), and >> then get some quotes from qualified writers as Dick did for the >> marketing work (only this is a much smaller job). >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> =Drummond >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On >> Behalf Of *Bill Washburn >> *Sent:* Friday, April 25, 2008 9:59 AM >> *To:* Drummond Reed >> *Subject:* Re: FW: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process >> >> n Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Drummond Reed >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> One more thought -- Mike and I both thought it be worth hiring a writer >> (unless you want to tackle it) to write up a short, plain-English >> summary of the OpenID IPR process (and a FAQ) and put it on (or link it >> prominently to) the http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ >> page so that we all have someplace to point folks to when they ask how >> it works. >> >> After all, shepherding OpenID IPR is one of our main jobs. >> >> Will you add this to the task list? I'm happy to make a motion that the >> board authorize a small amount to pay a writer to do this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> =Drummond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:50 PM >> To: Drummond Reed >> Subject: RE: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process >> >> It's at http://openid.net/ipr/ in the process document there. I don't >> know why there's not a link to it and the ipr policy doc from the >> http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ page. Can you send >> Bill a note cc'ing the board asking that that be fixed? >> >> Thanks, >> -- Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:47 PM >> To: Mike Jones >> Subject: Ben's observation about documentation of the WG process >> >> Mike, >> >> Just a note that I think Ben's right -- as best I can tell (from what I >> looked over), there's no documentation of the OpenID workgroup process. >> >> Is this the kind of thing we should ask Bill to do? Or at least to >> contract out? (This is the kind of thing I know Charles could do for >> ICF, but Bill has a different skillset...) >> >> One good writer for the OIDF website would go a loooong ways... >> >> =Drummond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:25 PM >> To: Drummond Reed >> Cc: David Recordon; Mike Jones; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu; Jonathan >> Daugherty >> Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE working group >> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Drummond Reed >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> > Yes, Ben, it's documented in the OpenID Foundation IPR docs at >> http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/. It could be better >> organized, but the OIDF is working on that. >> >> AFAICS that page does not document the WG process. >> >> > >> > =Drummond >> > >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:04 AM >> > > To: David Recordon >> > > Cc: Mike Jones; Drummond Reed; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu; Jonathan >> > > Daugherty >> > > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE working >> group >> > > >> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Recordon >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> > > wrote: >> > > > You're a part of the Foundation, but Google will have to choose >> to join >> > > the >> > > > working group. >> > > >> > > Err ... ok ... Google chooses to join the working group. >> > > >> > > BTW, is any of this documented anywhere? >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Apr 24, 2008, at 5:00 AM, "Ben Laurie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Mike Jones >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Good point about making it clear what we're asking people to do. >> > > I've >> > > > > > already asked them to join OIDF and to consider joining the >> working >> > > > group >> > > > > > once it's up and running. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Am I already joined by virtue of being at google? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > What I forgot to do was tell them when and how >> > > > > > the vote will occur. I propose to do so by adding this >> sentence to >> > > the >> > > > end >> > > > > > of the message: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "After the Specifications Council has responded to this >> request to >> > > > create a >> > > > > > working group (which must happen within 15 days) a separate >> message >> > > will >> > > > be >> > > > > > sent asking those of you who are OpenID members to vote on the >> > > working >> > > > group >> > > > > > creation, containing instructions for how to do so." >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sound good? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- Mike >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ________________________________ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > From: David Recordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:41 PM >> > > > > > To: Mike Jones >> > > > > > Cc: Ben Laurie; Drummond Reed; John Bradley; Johnny Bufu; >> Jonathan >> > > > > > Daugherty >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Draft note about creation of the OpenID PAPE >> working >> > > group >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Looks fine to me. The one thing I see missing is what we're >> asking >> > > > people >> > > > > > to do. Should we just have people reply with a +1 and we >> can deal >> > > with >> > > > the >> > > > > > actual counting of the votes re:membership orthogonally? I >> think >> > > that >> > > > might >> > > > > > be the easiest. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > --David >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Mike Jones wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi folks, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > To those of you on the to: line -- thanks for agreeing to >> serve on >> > > the >> > > > PAPE >> > > > > > working group with me to finish making the PAPE draft an OpenID >> > > > > > specification. Below is the note I propose to send to >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > to >> > > > > > initiate the creation of the working group. Please suggest any >> > > edits >> > > > you'd >> > > > > > like or send an ack that you're OK with it as-is. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Johnny and Jonathan, as authors of the existing PAPE spec, >> I'd also >> > > like >> > > > to >> > > > > > invite you to join and contribute to the working group. If you >> > > would >> > > > like >> > > > > > to be listed as proposers of the working group please let me >> know >> > > and >> > > > I'll >> > > > > > gladly also add you. And if any of you would crave the >> opportunity >> > > to >> > > > be an >> > > > > > editor of the specification I can add you to that list too. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks >> > > > all, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > Mike >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Subject: Proposal to create the PAPE working group >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and >> procedures >> > > > this >> > > > > > note proposes the formation of a new working group chartered to >> > > produce >> > > > an >> > > > > > OpenID specification. As per Section 4.1 of the Policies, the >> > > specifics >> > > > of >> > > > > > the proposed working group are: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Proposal: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (a) Charter. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (i) WG name: Provider Authentication Policy >> > > Extension >> > > > > > (PAPE) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (ii) Purpose: Produce a standard OpenID >> extension to >> > > the >> > > > > > OpenID Authentication protocol that: provides a mechanism >> by which >> > > a >> > > > > > Relying Party can request that particular authentication >> policies be >> > > > applied >> > > > > > by the OpenID Provider when authenticating an End User and >> provides >> > > a >> > > > > > mechanism by which an OpenID Provider may inform a Relying Party >> > > which >> > > > > > authentication policies were used. Thus a Relying Party can >> request >> > > that >> > > > the >> > > > > > End User authenticate, for example, using a phishing-resistant >> > > and/or >> > > > > > multi-factor authentication method. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (iii) Scope: Produce a revision of the PAPE 1.0 >> > > Draft 2 >> > > > > > specification that clarifies its intent, while maintaining >> > > compatibility >> > > > for >> > > > > > existing Draft 2 implementations. Adding any support for >> > > communicating >> > > > > > requests for or the use of specific authentication methods (as >> > > opposed >> > > > to >> > > > > > authentication policies) is explicitly out of scope. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: Provider >> > > > > > Authentication Policy Extension 1.0, spec completion >> expected during >> > > May >> > > > > > 2008. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: >> > > > > > Implementers of OpenID Providers and Relying Parties – >> especially >> > > those >> > > > > > interested in mitigating the phishing vulnerabilities of logging >> > > into >> > > > OpenID >> > > > > > providers with passwords. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (vi) Language in which the WG will conduct >> business: >> > > > > > English. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on the >> > > working >> > > > > > group mailing list, working group conference calls, and >> possibly a >> > > > > > face-to-face meeting at the Internet Identity Workshop. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (viii) Basis for determining when the work of >> the WG >> > > is >> > > > > > completed: Proposed changes to draft 2 will be evaluated on the >> > > basis >> > > > of >> > > > > > whether they increase or decrease consensus within the working >> > > group. >> > > > The >> > > > > > work will be completed once it is apparent that maximal >> consensus on >> > > the >> > > > > > draft has been achieved, consistent with the purpose and scope. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (b) Background Information. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (i) Related work being done in other WGs or >> > > > organizations: >> > > > > > (1) Assurance Levels as defined by the National Institute of >> > > Standards >> > > > and >> > > > > > Technology (NIST) in Special Publication 800-63 (Burr, W., >> Dodson, >> > > D., >> > > > and >> > > > > > W. Polk, Ed., "Electronic Authentication Guideline," April >> 2006.) >> > > > > > [NIST_SP800‑63]. This working group is needed to enable >> > > authentication >> > > > > > policy statements to be exchanged by OpenID endpoints. No >> > > coordination >> > > > is >> > > > > > needed with NIST, as the PAPE specification uses elements of the >> > > NIST >> > > > > > specification in the intended fashion. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (ii) Proposers: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Michael B. Jones, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > > > Microsoft Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > David Recordon, >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > Six >> > > > > > Apart Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ben Laurie, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Google >> > > > > > Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Drummond Reed, >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > > > Cordance Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > John Bradley, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > > > Wingaa Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Editors: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Michael B. Jones, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > > > Microsoft Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > David Recordon, >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > > Six >> > > > > > Apart Corporation >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (iii) Anticipated Contributions: None. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ==== >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > (The rest of this note is informational and not part of the >> proposal >> > > to >> > > > > > create an OpenID working group.) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Given that the OpenID specification procedures call for >> votes of the >> > > > > > membership, this would be a good time for those wanting to >> influence >> > > the >> > > > > > outcome of this specification to join the OpenID Foundation. >> You >> > > can do >> > > > so >> > > > > > at http://openid.net/foundation/join/. Should you wish to >> join the >> > > > working >> > > > > > group, you will also need to execute one of the Contribution >> > > Agreements >> > > > at >> > > > > > http://openid.net/foundation/intellectual-property/ once the >> working >> > > > group >> > > > > > formation has been approved by the membership. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
