I would suppose that it would look more like: OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 1 OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 2 OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT etc
If there were a precedent within the OIDF for needing multiple WGs on the same spec, it might be worth considering, but I'm not sure that that's a problem we're going to have in the immediate future. I could be wrong, but just doesn't seem like a pressing issue compared with other matters. Chris On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > So, for example, something like > > DRAFT OpenID Discovery Extension 1.0? > > I am fine with it, but what about other people? > > Also, I was wondering if WG and the spec is 1 to 1. > In many standardization organizations, it is not 1 to 1, > and sometimes the WG name and the spec it produces > is completely different. (e.g., SSTC and SAML). > > I have got an impression that at OpenID Foundation, > it is 1 to 1 right now, but is it the right way of doing it? > (It looks like it will hinder the modularization of the specs.) > > =nat > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Dick Hardt" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process > >> I would suggest having the word DRAFT in all caps on specs that are >> not approved, but enable the OpenID name to be included so that it is >> clear that it is intended to be an OpenID specification, as opposed to >> belonging in some other community. >> >> -- Dick >> >> On 19-Jan-09, at 7:30 PM, Chris Messina wrote: >> >>> I support with Martin's sentiments here. >>> >>> It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version >>> number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it >>> Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for >>> final specs, as we did with OAuth before. >>> >>> Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful >>> verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction >>> seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body >>> is to produce specs... >>> >>> I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing >>> to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done >>> -- not that any one is necessarily at fault. >>> >>> I also support putting such content under version control, again, as >>> we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response. >>>> >>>> I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt >>>> the >>>> "Draft") but >>>> some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the >>>> reason >>>> for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc. >>>> instead of >>>> "OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable >>>> concession to me at the time of creating the motion. >>>> >>>> It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion >>>> around this, >>>> please speak up. >>>> >>>> Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out >>>> http://openid.net/specs/ folder needs any Process document >>>> amendment so we >>>> can proceed fairly quicly. >>>> >>>> =nat >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <[email protected] >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nat Sakimura wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> /*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have >>>>>> agreed >>>>>> to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may >>>>>> claim >>>>>> OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's >>>>>> draft status or >>>>>> full specification status. */ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are >>>>> named >>>>> simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration >>>>> Extension, >>>>> OpenID Attribute Exchange). >>>>> >>>>> Having to invent another name to use while drafting the >>>>> specification >>>>> seems like a needless waste of effort. >>>>> >>>>> Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent >>>>> boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a >>>>> draft? It'd >>>>> also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved >>>>> drafts so >>>>> that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would >>>>> argue that we >>>>> don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 on >>>>> http://openid.net/specs/ ; having it under version control and >>>>> tagging the >>>>> published drafts ought to be sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> board mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> board mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Messina >>> Citizen-Participant & >>> Open Web Advocate-at-Large >>> >>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org >>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com >>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > -- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Web Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
