Fine with me.

On 2013-07-24, at 6:44 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> I’m fine with that.  What about the other specs council members and proposers?
>  
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck Mortimore
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:31 PM
> To: Lewis Adam-CAL022
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
>  
> Opening discussion again to help push this to completion.
>  
> I'm still not comfortable with "single authorization" as I believe it's 
> antithetical to what we actually need to build.      I do believe SSO best 
> describes the use-cases, but I'm willing to drop it to achieve agreement.
>  
> How about we drop all the qualifiers and simply call it the: Native 
> Application Working Group - it's high level and independent of 
> implementation, other than we're working on concerns for native apps.   We 
> can start with the current scope and it's easily re-charterable down the road.
>  
> -cmort
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Lewis Adam-CAL022 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> +2
>  
> We have written our own such function as we indeed call it an “SSO client.”  
> It’s what developers understand.  It’s what user’s understand.  It’s what 
> RFIs and RFPs call for.  At the end of the day a name is just a name, but I 
> personally find the name “native single authorization agent” to be a bit 
> confusing. 
>  
> Let’s think about how this is intended to be used.  An mobile user downloads 
> a Twitter client, a Facebook client, a G+ client and some other clients.  He 
> signs on once and gets access to their information on 
> Twitter/Facebook/G+/other.  Developers will think of it the same way.  It’s 
> SSO across native apps.  Imagine if the SAML WebSSO profile was named the 
> SAML single authorization agent profile?? J
>  
> adam
>  
>  
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Sand
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:00 PM
> To: Ashish Jain
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group
>  
> +1. The name will impact potential adoption, foolish to think it won't, and 
> "SSO" is a commonly (mis)understood term and often appears in business 
> requirements, even though it is often a misnomer or neglects other important 
> related aspects such as log off, session management etc. SSO is a name here, 
> not a binding technical scope
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Ashish Jain <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I still don't understand / agree with the objection on 
> openid-specs-native-sso. That's the intent and the primary use case. It will 
> be far more appealing / understandable to the mobile app developers than 
> 'single authorization agent'. 
> -- Ashish
>  
> 
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Paul Madsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> oh and I guess I should have mentioned the plans for a PRISMA subgroup ......
> 
> On 7/17/13 7:51 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> Ok you have a point. NSAA then. 
>  
> I want it in red. 
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
>  
> On 2013-07-17, at 7:28 PM, =JeffH <[email protected]> wrote:
>  
> request that the name be changed to "Native Single Authorization Agent", with
> the mailing list name openid-specs-nssa
> but "Native Single Authorization Agent" yields "nsaa" rather than "nssa", yes?
>  
> thus "openid-specs-nsaa" ?
>  
> =JeffH
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to