Today I sent a mail to OSIS-General on using OpenSSO for the Identity System/Selector that we are trying to build:

We at Sun would like to offer/suggest OpenSSO (
http://opensso.dev.java.net/) as a open source project within the OSIS
framework. I believe OSIS could benefit from the technologies that are
either already implemented within OpenSSO or 'very soon to be released',
including SAML 1.x, SAML 2.0, ID-* etc. For additional information on
OpenSSO, please take a look at Pat Paterson's blog at: 
http://blogs.sun.com/superpat/entry/recently_asked_questions_on_opensso
and 
http://blogs.sun.com/superpat/entry/first_multi_protocol_federated_ident
ity. 

Given the existing large code base of OpenSSO (and still growing), we should be a significant step ahead in the goal of creating a OSIS. 

My paper on persistent AJaX is to be published in the Research Disclosure Journal. Please find it here.

There are no new additions, just a formal publication.

Here is my mail to Mike Jones on the OSP:

Hello Mike - 

First of all this is most excellent news - and I am looking forward to
seeing those protocols being implemented by a large number of market
participants. 

However, I do have a few questions that you might be able to clarify: 

1. For the purposes of OSIS, there are some components in the WCS that
do no seem to be covered, in particular the InfoCard specifications,
including schema and the visual components for the card selector UI.
Will this be covered by a separate covenant?

2. Also, the language of the OSP mentions that only Necessary Claims,
i.e. those REQUIRED in the specs are covered. What about OPTIONAL, etc.
portions of the specs?

Thanks a lot, 

Gerald Beuchelt 

At this point I would like to thank Mike and also Kim for their work on getting the WS-* protocolsl into the OSP and - hopefully - all the other specifications that will follow

Here you can find the OSIS response to the OSP.

I think that this reposonse is - particularly in the context of OSIS and related efforts - quite appropriate. The obvious issues with the covenant, as also pointed out by quite a few of my colleagues (see e.g. Eve or Simon) are addressed, including the concern that Microsoft is not the only stake holder in the WS-* space.

... and what is this RALLY thing, anyways?

RALLY is an architecture and a set of specs form Microsoft that describes how to create devices that will easily configure themselves into a Microsoft centric network, with a heavy focus on home networking at this time. Here is their overview site:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/rally/default.mspx

A couple of important technologies include:

• PnP-X Plug and Play Extensions - This will allow external devices on the network to link themselves into the Windows OS and appear to the OS as Windows devices.
  
• LLTD Link Layer Topology Discovery - the name says it all ...
• Web Services Profile for Devices - I sense a candidate for another round of OSP.. or maybe not?

I just installed Windows Vista RC1 (Build 5600) and had some serious problems getting Windows Update to work from behind my proxy server. The error I got was 8024402C, along with the recommendation to try the Automatic Proxy configuration. Needless to say that this did not work ...

Here is how to get rolling with this issue:

1. Get the WinHTTP system proxy settings right

When configuring IE in Vista, you DO NOT configure the system HTTP proxy settings. In former versions of Windows you would use the proxycfg.exe command for doing this. In Vista, you will have to use the netsh.exe. (Does anybody know of a UI way to do this?) Do this:

netsh> winhttp

netsh winhttp> set proxy myproxy.company.tld:80

You have to do this in a CMD.EXE windows with administrative privileges (right click CMD.EXE in Accessories and select 'Run as Administrator').

2. Delete old setting for Windows update

- Stop the Windows Update service (e.g. through the Services MMC plug-in or through net stop wuauserv).

- Delete C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution (again, with administrator privileges)

- Start the Windows Update service

It should work now.

Just like some time earlier this year, Build 5600 (RC1) of the Windows Vista OS has difficulaties with VMWare. Fortunately, life is somewhat easier this time around: If your problem is that Vista seems to freeze during installation at the "Windows is load..." text stage, you should try to add the following lines to your .VMX file:

svga.maxWidth = "640"
svga.maxHeight = "480"

Thanks to Joel on Software for this tip.

Microsoft today announced their "Open Specifications Promise", essentially a non-assertion covenant for a huge chunk of WS-* protocols. This OSP means (as fas as I can tell - and I am NOT a lawyer ) that people can start implementing WS-* specifications without having to fear any action from Microsoft, as long as they do not sue Microsoft over these specs - duh!

This is quite good news for a number of reasons:

1. All existing implementations of WS-* technology are safe from any legal harassment from Microsoft. Not that they would do this necessarily, but this covenant gives peace of mind.
   
2. Since pretty much all security specs are out, OSIS and Higgins are now in a much better position to implement a WCS compatible InfoCard selector.
3. The best thing about this is the fundamental mindshift at Microsoft. A couple of years ago this would have been unthinkable. Now it is real. This is really major change in the way Microsoft deals with the open source community. It can be hoped that this OSP is just the beginning of a much more open discussion with Microsoft.
   

Thanks to the folks at blogs.sun.com, crossposting works for me (again). THe issue was that in the new 3.0 Roller deployment, all XMLRPC traffic was redirected to an HTTPS endpoint - which makes a lot of sense, but caused my client (dasBlog) to give up.

Hopefully, we will see ATOM based publishing soon ....

Tom Clark brought a very interesting article on patents to my attention:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2013011,00.asp

This is really not to single out Microsoft - everybody in the technology field(s) is doing this kind of thing right now. But it is plain wrong: On the one side I do see legitimate needs for software and similar patents - but the current system is obviously so overwhemled that all kinds of nonsensical applications can make it through the process.

From personal experience: some time ago, I had a friend who was in deep trouble: he wrote some open source software to control toy trains. Open source software - nice. Well, some patent troll from Oregon contacted him and told him about a patent he was granted that was - allegedly - infringed by this OSS package. My friend got an invoice for $200,000. It turned out that tthe patent in question "covered" any  cross-process communication - as long as it was related to toy trains. This patent was actually granted in 2003 - about 35 years after the first DARPAnet cross-machine communications RFCs and more than 17 years after Marklin released their first digital control system for toy trains. Bottom line: the system *is* broken.