nature.
"A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't it already
defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group be developing
a new signature mechanism?
Let me explain on it.

CX is not XML based. It is tag-value based. I do not think there is any generalized public key based signature algorithm that enables one to sign tag-value based on name spaces. What is defined in OAuth comes close, but it needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized such method, please point it to me. I understand that AuthN 2.1 would be looking at doing it. However, it is not there yet so it cannot be cited. Once it gets citable, I envision that it will be citing it instead of incorporating it into the CX spec.

For other points, it would be appreciated very much if you could explicitly state the points. Then, I would be replying to them.

By the way, from the process point, I believe that the specs council needs to be stating one of the reason stated in "4.2 Review". It needs to be one of

(a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with $B!x(B4.1);

(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's purpose;

(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support to succeed
or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or

(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability for the OIDF or others.

On what point the current proposal falls into?

Regards,

=nat



________________________________
$B:9=P?M(B: David Recordon [recordond at gmail.com]
$BAw?.F|;~(B: 2008$BG/(B12$B7n(B24$BF|(B 2:54
$B08 at h(B: Mike Jones
CC: Sakimura Nat; specs-council at openid.net
$B7oL>(B: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group
I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first approach Nat to see if the charter can be made to address these concerns and then resubmitted for review.

--David
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.comwrote:

I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or specific in many respects. One of my concerns is the same as David's below - when XMLDSIG and other signature algorithms already exist, it is incumbent upon the proposers to justify the creation of yet another, incompatible signature algorithm.



It is therefore my recommendation that the specifications council communicate something like this position to the membership to guide their vote about this working group:



The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this proposal to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seems to propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to these underlying protocols.



We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a recommendation prior to the membership vote. My stab at our recommendation is above. Wordsmithing welcome. If you disagree, please supply alternate wording that you think we should use instead.



-- Mike





From: David Recordon [mailto:recordond at gmail.com<mailto:recordond at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Nat Sakimura
Cc: Mike Jones; specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group



To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1 (the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).

While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and scope. For example, the scope says that the working group will develop "A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't it already defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group be developing a new signature mechanism?

--David

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jpwrote:

The most current version is here: http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0

Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output of this WG.

=nat

Mike Jones wrote:

Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on this spec$B!D(B

[Deleted the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current 40K list size limit]




--_000_C11F8A453DFFBE49A9F0D75873F554462A784D771ENAEXMSGC118re_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thus far I believe that only David and I have weighed in on
this.&nbsp; Before I jump in again, I$B!G(Bd be interested in knowing the views of Johnny,
Brad, Dick, Josh, and Allen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>What do the other 5 of you have to say about this proposal?<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --
Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div>

<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Sakimura Nat
[mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sakimura Nat; David Recordon; Mike Jones<br>
<b>Cc:</b> general at openid.net; specs-council at openid.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>P.S. Below, I used the word &quot;Algorithm&quot; but it is not
referring to something akin to RSA-SHA1 etc. Rather, it is the method to create
a signature base string from a subset of the tag-values in OpenID message. Word
such as &quot;scheme&quot; may be more appropriate. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Nat
Sakimura (=nat)</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div id=divRpF969748>

<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>

<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>

</span></div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=ZH-CN
style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B:9=P?M(B</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> specs-council-bounces at openid.net
[specs-council-bounces at openid.net] </span><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:
10.0pt'>$B$O(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
Sakimura Nat [n-sakimura at nri.co.jp] </span><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:
10.0pt'>$B$NBeM}(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BAw?.F|;~(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 2008</span><span
lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BG/(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>12</span><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:
10.0pt'>$B7n(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>24</span><span
lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BF|(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 9:10<br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B08 at h(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> David Recordon;
Mike Jones<br>
<b>CC:</b> general at openid.net; specs-council at openid.net<br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B7oL>(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Re: [OIDFSC] FW:
Proposal to create the TX working group</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>Thanks. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I
did not know that specs-council list is actually subscribable. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I
now have subscribed to it. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>From
what I see from the archive, the biggest objection seems to be the signature. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&gt;
&quot;A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method&quot;, but isn't
it already </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&gt;
defined how to sign chunks of XML?&nbsp; Why would the working group be
developing </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&gt;
a new signature mechanism?</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Let
me explain on it. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>CX
is not XML based. It is tag-value based. I do not think there is any
generalized public key based signature algorithm that enables one to sign
tag-value based on name spaces. What is defined in OAuth&nbsp;comes close, but
it needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized
such method, please point it to me. I understand that AuthN 2.1 would be
looking at doing it. However, it is not there yet so it cannot be cited. Once
it gets citable, I envision that it will be citing it instead of incorporating
it into the CX spec. </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>For
other points,&nbsp;it would be appreciated very much if you could explicitly
state the points. Then, I would be replying to them.</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>By
the way, from the process point, I believe that the specs council&nbsp;needs
to&nbsp;be stating one of the reason stated in &quot;4.2 Review&quot;. It needs
to be one of </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with $B!x(B4.1);<br>
<br>
(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID
community's purpose;<br>
<br>
(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a determination that the proposed WG does not have
sufficient support to succeed </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or<br>
<br>
(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; determination that the proposal is likely to
cause legal liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
<br>
On what point the current proposal falls into? </span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Regards,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>=nat</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div id=divRpF26306>

<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>

<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>

</span></div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=ZH-CN
style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B:9=P?M(B</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> David Recordon [recordond at gmail.com]<br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BAw?.F|;~(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 2008</span><span
lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BG/(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>12</span><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:
10.0pt'>$B7n(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>24</span><span
lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$BF|(B</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 2:54<br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B08 at h(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Mike Jones<br>
<b>CC:</b> Sakimura Nat; specs-council at openid.net<br>
</span><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>$B7oL>(B</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Re: [OIDFSC] FW:
Proposal to create the TX working group</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I think that's a reasonable
recommendation, though would like to first approach Nat to see if the charter
can be made to address these concerns and then resubmitted for review.<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Mike Jones &lt;<a
href="mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.Jones at microsoft.com</a>&gt;
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<div>

<div>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I have to agree with David that
this charter is far from minimal or specific in many respects.&nbsp; One of my
concerns is the same as David's below &#8211; when XMLDSIG and other signature
algorithms already exist, it is incumbent upon the proposers to justify the
creation of yet another, incompatible signature algorithm.</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>It is therefore my
recommendation that the specifications council communicate something like this
position to the membership to guide their vote about this working group:</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The
OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this proposal to
create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seems to
propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do
accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is
not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such as AX
1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to these
underlying protocols.</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>We, as a specs council, have an
obligation to promptly produce a recommendation prior to the membership
vote.&nbsp; My stab at our recommendation is above.&nbsp; Wordsmithing
welcome.&nbsp; If you disagree, please supply alternate wording that you think
we should use instead.</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
-- Mike</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>

<p><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> David Recordon [mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>]
<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Sent:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nat Sakimura<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mike Jones; <a href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Subject:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working
group</span> <o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually
at <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>
(the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).<br>
<br>
While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels
nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and
scope.&nbsp; For example, the scope says that the working group will develop
&quot;A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method&quot;, but isn't
it already defined how to sign chunks of XML?&nbsp; Why would the working group
be developing a new signature mechanism?<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<div>

<p>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Nat Sakimura &lt;<a
href="mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri.co.jp</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>

<p>The most current version is here: <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0</a><br>
<br>
Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output of
this WG.<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
Mike Jones wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<div>

<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on
this spec$B!D(B<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>[Deleted
the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current 40K list size
limit]</span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

<p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

--_000_C11F8A453DFFBE49A9F0D75873F554462A784D771ENAEXMSGC118re_--

From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 15 16:49:43 2008
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:49:43 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.40.1230101344.19049.specs-council@openid.net>

nature.
"A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't it already
defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group be developing
a new signature mechanism?
Let me explain on it.

CX is not XML based. It is tag-value based. I do not think there is any generalized public key based signature algorithm that enables one to sign tag-value based on name spaces. What is defined in OAuth comes close, but it needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized such method, please point it to me. I understand that AuthN 2.1 would be looking at doing it. However, it is not there yet so it cannot be cited. Once it gets citable, I envision that it will be citing it instead of incorporating it into the CX spec.

For other points, it would be appreciated very much if you could explicitly state the points. Then, I would be replying to them.

By the way, from the process point, I believe that the specs council needs to be stating one of the reason stated in "4.2 Review". It needs to be one of

(a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with $B!x(B4.1);

(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's purpose;

(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support to succeed
or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or

(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability for the OIDF or others.

On what point the current proposal falls into?

Regards,

=nat



________________________________
$B:9=P?M(B: David Recordon [recordond at gmail.com<mailto:recordond at gmail.com>]
$BAw?.F|;~(B: 2008$BG/(B12$B7n(B24$BF|(B 2:54
$B08 at h(B: Mike Jones
CC: Sakimura Nat; specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net>
$B7oL>(B: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first approach Nat to see if the charter can be made to address these concerns and then resubmitted for review.

--David
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com><mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.comwrote:

I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or specific in many respects. One of my concerns is the same as David's below - when XMLDSIG and other signature algorithms already exist, it is incumbent upon the proposers to justify the creation of yet another, incompatible signature algorithm.



It is therefore my recommendation that the specifications council communicate something like this position to the membership to guide their vote about this working group:



The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this proposal to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seems to propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to these underlying protocols.



We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a recommendation prior to the membership vote. My stab at our recommendation is above. Wordsmithing welcome. If you disagree, please supply alternate wording that you think we should use instead.



-- Mike




From: David Recordon [mailto:recordond at gmail.com<mailto:recordond at gmail.com><mailto:recordond at gmail.com<mailto:recordond at gmail.com>>]

Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Nat Sakimura
Cc: Mike Jones; specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net><mailto:specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net>>
Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group



To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1 (the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).

While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and scope. For example, the scope says that the working group will develop "A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method", but isn't it already defined how to sign chunks of XML? Why would the working group be developing a new signature mechanism?

--David
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp<mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp><mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jpwrote:

The most current version is here: http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0

Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output of this WG.

=nat

Mike Jones wrote:

Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on this spec$B!D(B


[Deleted the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current 40K list size limit]


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net>
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/

--_000_C11F8A453DFFBE49A9F0D75873F554462A784D7721NAEXMSGC118re_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"PMingLiU","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>If the different pieces are separately describable and
separately usable (and in particular, separately reusable), I, for one, believe
that it would be far more advantageous to the community for these pieces to
actually be separate working group deliverables, each of which can be judged on
their own merits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --
Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nat
Sakimura<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Williams<br>
<b>Cc:</b> general at openid.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OpenID] [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working
group<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Well, yeah, but I think
specs-committee is not talking about (d). <br>
<br>
I also considered splitting it into dsig and cx, but current spec process is a
kind of heavy lifting, so I was hoping that I could do it in one shot. Also,
one of the beauty of OpenID specs were not being modularized so much, so that
you do not have to go through so many specs. From the point of veiw of the
modularity, I would split the authentication spec as well into (1) Discovery
(of both canonical ID e.g., URI with fragment and services), (2) Assertion
Format (3) Signature methods (4) Protocols. [I actually prefer this way, but
I've got a feeling that this community wants a monolithic spec.]<br>
<br>
=nat<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Peter Williams &lt;<a
href="mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com">pwilliams at rapattoni.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal>It will fail d.<br>
<br>
but so will almost any proposal. D is just an excuse used to shoot down the
direction. Its subjective, and one simply hires any 2 bit lawyer to (always)
say there exists liability greater than zero.<br>
<br>
Break your proposal down. Make it simpler.<br>
<br>
The scheme for symmetric signatures supported by the symmetrickey management
regime in openid auth V2 will be augmented with a scheme based on public key
signatures supported by asymmetric key management.<br>
<br>
Get that passed. then make another.<br>
<br>
An openid extension will be specified communicating text values that will allow
entities to attach legal terms to openid auth messages, specially focussing on
forming those private associations over which assertions may bear public key
signatures.<br>
<br>
Get it passed.<br>
<br>
<br>
Then call for a merger: half way through, once the politics has died down a
bit. Recognize its running straight into xmldsig signature's space.<br>
<br>
Each of those needs to be now defensible in its own right. The first is
substantiated under the desire to sastify legal signature laws reqiring that
qualified certificates support certain types of signed assertions (eu) . The
second is substantiated on...<br>
<br>
<br>
Getting the propopsal passed has nothing to do with specifying the technical
solution.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Sakimura Nat &lt;<a href="mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri.co.jp</a>&gt;<br>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:10 PM<br>
To: David Recordon &lt;<a href="mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>&gt;;
Mike Jones &lt;<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>&gt;<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:general at openid.net">general at openid.net</a> &lt;<a
href="mailto:general at openid.net">general at openid.net</a>&gt;; <a
href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a> &lt;<a
href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a>&gt;<br>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
I did not know that specs-council list is actually subscribable.<br>
I now have subscribed to it.<br>
<br>

From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 15 16:49:43 2008
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:49:43 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.41.1230101344.19049.specs-council@openid.net>

signature.<br>
<br>
&gt; &quot;A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method&quot;, but
isn't it already<br>
&gt; defined how to sign chunks of XML? &nbsp;Why would the working group be
developing<br>
&gt; a new signature mechanism?<br>
Let me explain on it.<br>
<br>
CX is not XML based. It is tag-value based. I do not think there is any
generalized public key based signature algorithm that enables one to sign
tag-value based on name spaces. What is defined in OAuth comes close, but it
needs generalization as it is specific to OAuth. If there s a generalized such
method, please point it to me. I understand that AuthN 2.1 would be looking at
doing it. However, it is not there yet so it cannot be cited. Once it gets
citable, I envision that it will be citing it instead of incorporating it into
the CX spec.<br>
<br>
For other points, it would be appreciated very much if you could explicitly
state the points. Then, I would be replying to them.<br>
<br>
By the way, from the process point, I believe that the specs council needs to
be stating one of the reason stated in &quot;4.2 Review&quot;. It needs to be
one of<br>
<br>
(a) &nbsp; &nbsp;an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with $B!x(B4.1);<br>
<br>
(b) &nbsp; &nbsp;a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID
community's purpose;<br>
<br>
(c) &nbsp; &nbsp; a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient
support to succeed<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; or to deliver proposed deliverables within
projected completion dates; or<br>
<br>
(d) &nbsp; &nbsp;a &nbsp;determination that the proposal is likely to cause
legal liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
<br>
On what point the current proposal falls into?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B:9=P?M(B</span>: David Recordon [<a
href="mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>]<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$BAw?.F|;~(B</span>: 2008<span lang=ZH-TW>$BG/(B</span>12<span lang=ZH-TW>$B7n(B</span>24<span
lang=ZH-TW>$BF|(B</span> 2:54<br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B08 at h(B</span>: Mike Jones<br>
CC: Sakimura Nat; <a href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
<span lang=ZH-TW>$B7oL>(B</span>: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working
group<br>
<br>
I think that's a reasonable recommendation, though would like to first approach
Nat to see if the charter can be made to address these concerns and then
resubmitted for review.<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:20
PM, Mike Jones &lt;<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.Jones at microsoft.com</a>&lt;mailto:<a
href="mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com">Michael.Jones at microsoft.com</a>&gt;&gt;
wrote:<br>
<br>
I have to agree with David that this charter is far from minimal or specific in
many respects. &nbsp;One of my concerns is the same as David's below &#8211; when
XMLDSIG and other signature algorithms already exist, it is incumbent upon the
proposers to justify the creation of yet another, incompatible signature
algorithm.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is therefore my recommendation that the specifications council communicate
something like this position to the membership to guide their vote about this
working group:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that members reject this proposal
to create a working group because the charter is excessively broad, it seems to
propose the creation of new mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do
accomplish existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it the proposal is
not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon existing mechanisms such as AX
1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it requires breaking changes to these
underlying protocols.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We, as a specs council, have an obligation to promptly produce a recommendation
prior to the membership vote. &nbsp;My stab at our recommendation is above.
&nbsp;Wordsmithing welcome. &nbsp;If you disagree, please supply alternate
wording that you think we should use instead.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal>From: David Recordon [mailto:<a
href="mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>&lt;mailto:<a
href="mailto:recordond at gmail.com">recordond at gmail.com</a>&gt;]<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:20 AM<br>
To: Nat Sakimura<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal>Cc: Mike Jones; <a href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a>&lt;mailto:<a
href="mailto:specs-council at openid.net">specs-council at openid.net</a>&gt;<o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW:
Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To update Nat's note, the proposal is actually at <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>
(the wiki doesn't like periods in URLs).<br>
<br>
While the number of specifications listed has been reduced, it still feels
nebulous in terms of what will be produced as laid out by the purpose and
scope. &nbsp;For example, the scope says that the working group will develop
&quot;A Public Key Cryptography based digital signature method&quot;, but isn't
it already defined how to sign chunks of XML? &nbsp;Why would the working group
be developing a new signature mechanism?<br>
<br>
--David<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09
PM, Nat Sakimura &lt;<a href="mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri.co.jp</a>&lt;mailto:<a
href="mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp">n-sakimura at nri.co.jp</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
The most current version is here: <a
href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0</a><br>
<br>
Since AX 2.0 WG is spinning up, I have removed it from the possible output of
this WG.<br>
<br>
=nat<br>
<br>
Mike Jones wrote:<br>
<br>
Forwarding this note to the list to kick off the actual specs council work on
this spec$B!D(B<br>
<br>
<br>
[Deleted the rest of the thread to bring the message below the current 40K list
size limit]<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general at openid.net">general at openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

--_000_C11F8A453DFFBE49A9F0D75873F554462A784D7721NAEXMSGC118re_--

Search Discussions

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupopenid-specs-council @
categoriesopenid
postedAug 15, '08 at 11:49p
activeAug 15, '08 at 11:49p
posts1
users1
websiteopenid.net
irc#openid

1 user in discussion

(): 1 post

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase