Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

That is essentially the new form that the proposal is going to take. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > Added implication is that, by defining "sreg" class, we can effectively roll > sreg into AX. > > =nat > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: >> >> P.S. I

RE: [OpenID board] Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The Specs Council and Process)

I have to agree with Nat. The real problem here, as I see it, is that the current specs council members appear to be reluctant to actually fulfill their duties for timely review of specification proposals. David or Scott, can you please create the (publicly readable) specs-coun...@openid.net

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

Added implication is that, by defining "sreg" class, we can effectively roll sreg into AX. =nat On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > P.S. I and Hide Nara was talking the other day that it probably would be > very useful for the AX to be able to define a "class" of attributes t

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

P.S. I and Hide Nara was talking the other day that it probably would be very useful for the AX to be able to define a "class" of attributes to define a set of attributes. For example, "Creadit Card" class includes following paramters: 1. FullName 2. Card Number 3. Expire Day 4. Secure digits AX

Re: Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

Thanks Dick! I am looking forward to hear "Go Ahead!" from the spec council in a very near future for CX WG. =nat On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Dick Hardt wrote: > > On 17-Dec-08, at 6:17 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > > Hi. >> >> Could you kindly update me of the status of CX WG proposal? >>

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

I am looking foward to it! On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > Breno, if you have time to update the proposal per our discussion that > would be fabulous! > > > On 17-Dec-08, at 5:07 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > > We have made significant process in that in-person chat and w

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

Breno, if you have time to update the proposal per our discussion that would be fabulous! On 17-Dec-08, at 5:07 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > We have made significant process in that in-person chat and we need to > document this in proposal draft form. > > I could try and update the proposal f

Re: Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

On 17-Dec-08, at 6:17 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > Hi. > > Could you kindly update me of the status of CX WG proposal? > People are waiting for it. > > Also, I think it is a really good idea to set up a ML for spec > council so that people can mail the spec council collectively. > I am emailing to

Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

Hi. Could you kindly update me of the status of CX WG proposal? People are waiting for it. Also, I think it is a really good idea to set up a ML for spec council so that people can mail the spec council collectively. I am emailing to David, Dick and Josh just because I happen to have found them e

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

We have made significant process in that in-person chat and we need to document this in proposal draft form. I could try and update the proposal for "validate request" which has tentatively been abandoned in terms of allowing meta-data to describe attributes in fetch/store requests. 2008/12/17 Di

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

I've been busy with other things. :-) I had an in person chat with Allen Tom, Eran and Breno about what they were thinking of. There was some discussion on the step2 list. I have a work item to write up the scope so that we can get it started -- but have needed to deal with some time critic

What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

I am very interested in it, but have not heard about it for sometime. What is the status right now? -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The Specs Council and Process)

Well. Very good discussion. I am glad that I started the original thread. At the same time, I would like the spec council to issue overdue recommendations, especially for Contract Exchange. It has been sitting there for a long time now. (By now, the actual works should have started.) As I believe

Re: Use of Qworum for indirect communication

Duty compels me to point out an existing XML-based architecture for SSO that has support for smart-clients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAML paul Dick Hardt wrote: Designing OpenID around a particular product is clearly a non-starter. Enabling smart clients was discussed as part of O

Re: Use of Qworum for indirect communication

Designing OpenID around a particular product is clearly a non-starter. Enabling smart clients was discussed as part of OpenID 2.1 at IIW. Smart clients can: reduce the phishing risk of malicious RPs improve the user experience by simplifying the flow improve the performa

Re: Use of Qworum for indirect communication

I think that OpenID auth would benefit from Qworum in a broad sense, because Qworum aims to address the needs of a class of services called "multi-phase services", which includes OP-type services. Having said that, two concrete benefits immediately come to mind: 1. Simplified OP Currently the OP