liberty of renaming v.Next to 2.x, and made compatibility with 2.x an
explicit goal of this work.
I'm reluctant of the applicability of this work to active clients and have
subsequently removed this line:
? produce user experience guidelines for supporting for a spectrum of
clients, including passive clients per current usage, thin active clients,
and active clients with OP functionality,
*(i)* *WG name:* OpenID 2.x User Experience.
*(ii)* *Purpose:* Produce a user experience specification or family of
specifications for OpenID 2.x that address the limitations and drawbacks
present in the OpenID 2.0 that limit OpenID?s applicability, adoption,
usability, privacy, and security. Specific goals are:
? produce user experience guidelines for less intrusive
authentication user experiences than full-page browser redirect,
? produce user experience guidelines for controlled and uncontrolled
release of attributes,
? produce user experience guidelines for use of identities and
attributes by non-browser applications,
? produce user experience guidelines for optimized protocol flows
combining authentication, attribute release, and resource authorization,
? produce user experience guidelines for use of OpenID on mobile
? seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID 2.x
Compatibility with OpenID 2.x is an explicit goal for this work.
*(iii)* *Scope:* Produce a current generation OpenID user experience
specification or specifications, consistent with the purpose statement.
*(iv)* *Proposed List of Specifications*: OpenID 2.x User Experience
and possibly related specifications.
*(v)* *Anticipated audience or users of the work:* Implementers of
OpenID Providers, Relying Parties, Active Clients, and non-browser
applications utilizing OpenID.
*(vi)* *Language in which the WG will conduct business*: English.
*(vii)* *Method of work: *E-mail discussions on the working group
mailing list, working group conference calls, and face-to-face meetings at
the Internet Identity Workshop and OpenID summits.
*(viii)* *Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed:*
Work will not be deemed to be complete until there is a consensus that the
resulting protocol specification or family of specifications fulfills the
working group goals. Additional proposed changes beyond that initial
consensus will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or
decrease consensus within the working group. The work will be completed
once it is apparent that maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved,
consistent with the purpose and scope.
*(b) **Background Information**.*
*(i)* *Related work being done in other WGs or organizations*: Draft
User Interface (UI)
Kantara Universal Login Experience (ULX)
<http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/>working group. RPX
product design <http://rpxnow.com>. Facebook Authentication
Google user authentication
Chris Messina, chris.messina at gmail.com (chair)
Dick Hardt, dick.hardt at gmail.com
*Additional proposers to be added here*
*(iii)* *Anticipated Contributions*: None.
Open Web Advocate, Google
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...