I'm fine with "*Native Application Working Group"*. Let's identify the next steps. -- Ashish
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:19 AM, n-sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > OK with me as well. > > > (2013/07/25 8:02), John Bradley wrote: > >> Fine with me. >> >> On 2013-07-24, at 6:44 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected] >> <mailto:Michael.Jones@**microsoft.com <[email protected]>>> >> wrote: >> >> I’m fine with that. What about the other specs council members and >>> proposers? >>> *From:*openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<[email protected]> >>> >[mailto:openi**[email protected].**net<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:specs-bounces@lists.**openid.net<[email protected]>>]*On >>> Behalf Of*Chuck Mortimore >>> *Sent:*Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:31 PM >>> *To:*Lewis Adam-CAL022 >>> *Cc:*[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>;spec**[email protected]<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:specs-council@openid.**net <[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 >>> <Adam.Lewis@motorolasolutions.**com <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:Adam.Lewis@**motorolasolutions.com<[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:*openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<[email protected]> >>> >[mailto:openi**[email protected].**net<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:openid-specs-bounces@**lists.openid.net<[email protected]>>]*On >>> Behalf Of*Richard Sand >>> *Sent:*Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:00 PM >>> *To:*Ashish Jain >>> *Cc:*[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>;spec**[email protected]<[email protected]> >>> <mailto:specs-council@openid.**net <[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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<Jeff.Hodges@**KingsMountain.com> >>> <mailto:Jeff.Hodges@**KingsMountain.com <[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] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> >>> specs mailing list >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >>> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> specs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >> >> > > -- > Nat Sakimura ([email protected]) > Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. > Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547 > > 本メールに含まれる情報は機密情報であり、**宛先に記載されている方のみに送信 することを意図しております。**意図された受取人以外の方によるこれらの情報の > 開示、複製、再配布や転送など一切の利用が禁止されています。**誤って本メール を受信された場合は、申し訳ございませんが、**送信者までお知らせいただき、受 > 信されたメールを削除していただきますようお願い致します。 > PLEASE READ: > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended for > the named recipient(s) only. > If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby > notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of > this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your > system. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/**mailman/listinfo/openid-specs<http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
