I agree with John's point that we want to get this work under OIDF IPR
protections ASAP. That's why I've been encouraging Paul to submit the charter
and get the working group approved so we can start collecting IPR agreements.
I believe that whether the working group eventually decides to factor the work
to also include working on specifications in the IETF or other organizations is
a separable issue. It's clear that there's an OIDF-specific portion because
part of the work is a profile of OpenID Connect, so at the very least, we need
to establish IPR protections using the working group process for that portion
of the work.
-- Mike
From: John Bradley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:41 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Paul Madsen; Mike Jones; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
We floated the idea of starting this as a IETF ID, but it was felt that getting
it under the OIDF IPR policy as soon as possible was preferable if any of it
was to become a OIDF spec.
I would not characterize the Dynamic registration work as a disaster of any
sort. It is true that once in the IETF these things are harder to keep
focuses, however that argues for developing the profile inside the OIDF.
Given that we have already included some things in connect like "azp" to enable
intermediate agent to get id_tokens to be consumed by 3rd parties we also
considered doing it in the connect WG.
I personally thought a separate WG was preferable to avoid people who have IPR
commitments to Connect from being forced to make them for this without taking
an affirmative action to join the WG.
As we dig into this the work may need to be separated into several
specifications as delegation of a token to a 3rd party, basing authorization of
a 3rd parties resource server on an external assertion, bootstrapping web
applications from a native app, and proxying OAuth requests. That will be the
decision of the WG once it is chartered.
I appreciate your intrest in making sure that we correctly set the scope of the
WG.
John B.
On 2013-07-03, at 5:59 PM, Anthony Nadalin
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The user experience may be SSO but that is only 1 type of experience, this is a
byproduct of the token delegation. I don't want the situation we are in with
dynamic registration we are now, having to keep the OIDF work in sync with the
IETF work, its suck. I think this could be easily profiled in IETF to be
generic and then anything specific can be done in OIDF
From: Paul Madsen [mailto:[email protected]<http://pingidentity.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:47 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Mike Jones; John Bradley;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
it enables a 'login once, enjoy seamless access' across multiple native apps -
how is that not SSO? While the mechanism may be token delegation, the user
experience is SSO
The proposal is to profile OIDC - it's not a distinct protocol - that's why we
are bringing it to OIDF
paul
On 7/3/13 5:42 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
This is a real crappy name, as its not SSO, it's a "token delegation agent" (so
proposal is to handle both authentication and authorization). Question is does
it belong here or at IETF, if the dynamic registration fits in IETF why
wouldn't this ?
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:26 PM
To: John Bradley; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Paul Madsen;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
This proposed charter did not incorporate any of the proposed improvements and
clarifications that I circulated to the authors - not even the spelling
corrections or the (I believe necessary) statement that "This specification
will not make breaking changes to OpenID Connect 1.0".
My proposed version is attached. I would appreciate it you would resubmit the
charter with these corrections incorporated. After that, I will support the
formation of the working group.
Thank you,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John
Bradley
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:35 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Paul Madsen; Chuck
Mortimore; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
Nat Sakimura; matake@gmail;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
The enclosed Work Group Charter is being sent to the Specs Council for review
in anticipation of chartering the Group.
It is best have this activity under the foundation IPR as soon as possible.
Regards
John B.
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
