Re: [xri] Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT Thursday 2009-06-11

[Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>]

It is kind of interesting that OpenID list is generally negative
against XML Dsig while OAuth is positive (though, as Eran states,
there is no use case for OAuth but for OpenID.)

So, I posted next question to the OpenID List whether they
would be amiable to XML DSig if native language form of
libraries are provided to them. (I hope they will be.)

We all know that XML DSig in XRI Resolution 2.0 did not get
any support. One of the factor must have been the lack of
easy to use library. This is one of the thing that we must
address.

Scott's description of the constrained C14N  would be a
good tool for changing people's mind set.

IMHO, writing a good spec is one thing, but getting the
traction on it is also as important. Trying what we have
failed before again without a countermeasure is something
what I would like to avoid.

=nat

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:58 AM
To: "'XRI TC'" <xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [xri] Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT Thursday 2009-06-11

> Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XRI TC at:
>
> Date:  Thursday, 11 June 2009 USA
> Time:  2:00PM - 3:00PM Pacific Time (21:00-22:00 UTC)
>
> (Note: Drummond could not attend so these minutes were taken by John.)
>
> ATTENDING
>
> Scott Cantor
> Nat Sakimura
> Will Norris
> John Bradley
>
> REGRETS
>
> Drummond Reed
> Eran Hammer-Lahav
>
>
> 1) DO WE STILL NEED A SIMPLE SIGNING METHOD?
>
> Among the attendees on this call, the consensus was, "probably not".
>
> Nat is still concerned about adoption, and is looking for more feedback 
> from
> the OpenID mailing list.
>
> John cynically thinks signing will not be popular with some people no 
> matter
> what the canonicalization method is.
>
> Scott is going to create a description of the constrained form.
>
> Scott added the following comment in email:
>
> ***** BEGIN QUOTE *****
>
> Just for the permanent record, on the sparsely attended call today I 
> raised
> one of my other concerns about the proliferation of proprietary signing
> mechanisms in specs, which is algorithm agility.
>
> I had been planning to mention to Will that copying the SAML spec's 
> outdated
> recommendation to use RSAwithSHA1 as the signing algorithm was probably 
> not
> the ideal choice, since SHA256 is gradually replacing SHA1 as the current
> "best option" until the new hash standard is done.
>
> The more one duplicates signing functionality across multiple spots in the
> software stack, the harder it is to maintain control over the algorithms
> being used and maintain some degree of agility as these old algorithms 
> fall
> into disrepair.
>
> ***** END QUOTE *****
>
> John thinks that once implementers try c14n once they will like it "like
> green eggs and ham", as Dr. Suess said. He said that making sure the 5 or 
> 6
> main OpenID libraries support it will cover 90% of the initial users.
>
>
> 2) OTHER XRD 1.0 ISSUES
>
> Will raised the question of TargetSubject and how that would work when
> delegating entire domains. It may be that using TargetAuthority will be
> sufficient.  Will is exploring use cases.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>