[WG-ULX] Notes from today's call

[gael.gourmelen at orange-ftgroup.com]

Hi Paul,
Some clarifications below on envisioned TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS :

*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: second bullet addition: this may be fine, we'd like to learn more about the nature of the ISA (e.g. does it assume an unmodified browser?)  

          Yes we assume an ISA in the network accessed through a possibly unmodified browser (as opposed to the ISA in the device = browser add-on). 

*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: third bullet addition: we don't entirely understand this. Seems to imply that we shouldn't make up entirely new things; try to reuse existing SAML metadata. Perhaps "newly designed features should be as compatible and consistent as possible with existing specifications" is part of the intent here.

	In fact, we envisoned here that some specifications already exist and could be extended to enable IDPs to express their capabilities and presentation characteristics (same as what is refered as "Identity Provider Inputs" here : http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/Inputs+to+the+RP+Pop+Up+UI). For a SAML IDP, we can leverage the SAML Metadata specifications, for OpenID OPs, we can maybe leverage the YADIS/XRDS specifications, ... We have presented the following slides in the IDPS session last week on this topic : http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/41027190/IDP+Metadata+Status+and+Evo+v02.ppt that describe lacks in existing specs and evolution proposals (we already had some comments during the session and on the mailing list). So our intent is as you wrote : "newly designed features should be as compatible and consistent as possible with existing specifications" but it does not mean that there is nothing to do and we are opened to discuss all technical solutions (including entirely new things if it makes sense).
	

Thanks,
Gaël
 

________________________________

De : wg-ulx-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-ulx-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] De la part de Paul Trevithick
Envoyé : mercredi 17 mars 2010 23:01
À : wg-ulx at kantarainitiative.org.
Objet : [WG-ULX] Notes from today's call


http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/ULX+Teleconference+2010-03-17 


Copied here:


Agenda


0) Roll <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/Participant%20Roster>  Call


*	RL Bob Morgan 
*	John Bradley 
*	Paul Trevithick 
*	Nate Klingenstein 


1) IdPS + ULX WG common charter


We reviewed the IDPS/ULX common charter document that had been prepared by Philippe Clement and sent to the list today

*	Section (2) PURPOSE: Problem: There is a mention made of the "Liberty Identity Provider Selector MRD" people may not have access to 
*	Section (2) PURPOSE: Strike "the ISA" and replace "identity services" with "identity services including identity providers and identity selection agents (ISA)s" 
*	Section (2) PURPOSE: second and fifth bullets also mention the Liberty MRD 
*	Section (3) SCOPE: fourth bullet (same problem as above) 
*	Section (3) SCOPE: (new) sixth bullet: fine as is 
*	Section (3) SCOPE: ninth bullet: fine as is 
*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: first bullet addition: fine 
*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: second bullet addition: this may be fine, we'd like to learn more about the nature of the ISA (e.g. does it assume an unmodified browser?) 
*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: third bullet addition: we don't entirely understand this. Seems to imply that we shouldn't make up entirely new things; try to reuse existing SAML metadata. Perhaps "newly designed features should be as compatible and consistent as possible with existing specifications" is part of the intent here. 
*	Section (4) DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: fourth bullet: This might be okay. 
*	Section (6) LEADERSHIP: Addition of Philippe as a co-chair to carry forward the IDPS WG work makes sense to us. 
*	Section (8) DURATION: the addition is fine other than the general issue of citing the Liberty MRD 
*	Section (12) PROPOSERS: Not sure how to handle a retroactive change like this. 

We had a discussion about the fact that if we wanted to change the group's IPR regime, this re-chartering effort was a good moment to do so. Changing the IPR regime is may best done by closing this group, starting a new group (under the new regime) and then having the old group contribute the existing IPR. If the new IPR regime is not the Liberty regime then the contributors would have to state that they are waiving their patent rights over their contributions.

It appears that at Kantara the Creative Commons and Apache 2 licenses can't be used for groups that produce technical specifications (like this one).


2) Update on Web Mockup


*	Paul: We are now past the hiccup related to funding to Kevin. I will convey to Kevin (a) the enhancements that we've already discussed and (b) the consensus that we want to also "finish" the mockup--meaning that all paths through the mockup should be coded (no dead ends) and that the user experience should simulate a working login experience. We'll try to get the Web Mockup done so Valeska can show it at the IA2010 <http://2010.iasummit.org>  conference in Phoenix April 9th at a poster session. 


3) One more piece of input from RSA


*	Paul: Our pop UX must be conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-ulx/attachments/20100325/6193d9d0/attachment-0001.html