Sounds very productive, thanks for the recap and the quick collaboration.
From: Atul Tulshibagwale <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:36 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Gail Hodges <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Mark
<[email protected]>, OpenID RISC List
<[email protected]>, Tim Cappalli
<[email protected]>, Backman, Annabelle <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Versioning proposal
Hi Mike and Mark,
Thanks for your time today. Here are my notes from the call:
1. Mike proposed that we do not actually version the protocol, because of
two reasons:
* Versions may not be linear. People may add different features and may
support different features in the future, so a linear version scale may not
make sense. For instance, the OAuth spec is not versioned, but it has many
additional features such as PKCE, DPoP, CIBA etc. Participants can individually
support these features.
* We already have draft numbering, and protocol version numbers may be
hard to distinguish from that.
1. Mike proposed that we add specific feature flags in the Transmitter
Configuration Metadata. We currently have two things that require versioning:
* Sub_id at top level
* API style (previous API has differences with the current API)
1. Mark pointed out some parallels (and pitfalls) with other specs such as
Identity Assurance, where they are using this approach.
This will satisfy our needs and will be a more robust way of supporting
multiple new things we may decide to add in the spec later.
Action Items
1. Atul to discuss this in the WG meeting tomorrow.
2. Atul to update PR based on outcome of WG meeting, but hopefully along the
above lines. Mike and Mark to review that PR
3. The current versioning proposal PR will be dropped.
Please respond if I haven't captured anything correctly or you wish to add
anything here.
Atul
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:48 AM Atul Tulshibagwale
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Mike and Mark,
I've updated the versioning proposal to establish how protocol version numbers
discussed in the document will correlate to the spec version numbers defined in
the naming document you shared. Please review them here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=sharing
Atul
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:50 PM Michael Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Atul. It seems reasonable.
However, I’m not totally sure how it relates to published draft filenames and
the titles and draft numbers within the drafts themselves. Could we schedule a
half-hour call to dive into this?
In particular, I’d like to understand how this relates to the specification
version numbers (such as 1.0) and draft numbers (such as 29) as described in
the OpenID Foundation specification naming conventions described at
https://openid.net/wg/resources/naming-and-contents-of-specifications/.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
From: Atul Tulshibagwale <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 6:00 PM
To: Gail Hodges <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Mark
<[email protected]>; OpenID RISC List
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
Tim Cappalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
Backman, Annabelle <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Versioning proposal
Thanks Gail,
Mike and Mark,
You can also review this pull
request<https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/123>, which has the
versioning proposal in a Kramdown format. It also uses that versioning proposal
in the SSF spec.
Thanks,
Atul
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:00 AM Gail Hodges
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Atul
Many thanks for sharing! Glad you are at a stage to dive deeper into the
mechanics of versioning.
Mike Jones, Mark H
Can you please kindly review and revert to Atuil and the Shared Signals WG?
I am conscious that there has been considerable work by the two of you and
others in order to:
* Document the current specification processes
* Document the unwritten best practices
* Create tools to automate those processes, and pilot the automation tools
with the DCP WG
* Close gaps in the Process Document via discrete changes, which the
Process Subgroup of the Board will present to Board prior to vote by the full
membership.
Marie- As Secretary, FYI
Gail
From: Atul Tulshibagwale <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:55 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Gail Hodges <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OpenID RISC List
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Tim Cappalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Backman, Annabelle <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Versioning proposal
Hi all,
In the Shared Signals WG, we recently agreed to this versioning proposal.
Shared Signals Versioning
Proposal<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
I'm not sure if the OpenID Foundation has anything it uses across all WGs
regarding versioning. Could you please review the versioning proposal and let
us know if anything needs to be
changed?<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
Thanks,<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
Atul<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
Co-chair, Shared Signals
WG<https://docs.google.com/document/d/111yCtaF26tYUwOUM_Wg_896X1sE64PhtxQx8Bie7INU/edit?usp=drive_web>
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
