[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Minutes:Joint XRI & XDI TC Telecon 10AM PT Thursday 2007-06-21
The feeling is mutual .... and I sincerely hope to continue to work with you on this or other XRI ventures. contact: =les sip: =les/(+phone) chat: =les/skype/chat > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:11 PM > To: Chasen, Les; '=drummond.reed'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; > xdi@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Minutes:Joint XRI & XDI TC Telecon 10AM PT Thursday > 2007-06-21 > > > Les, > > Any decision I have made regarding the TC is not related to you or that > debate. That debate served to cover some important points and resulted in > net progress. (If anything, I should be apologizing for being somewhat > snappy near the end.) I have found it both a pleasure and honor to work > with > you. > > ~ Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chasen, Les [mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:08 AM > To: =drummond.reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Minutes:Joint XRI & XDI TC Telecon 10AM PT Thursday > 2007-06-21 > > Steve - > > Let me apologize for our synonym debate ... I was saying that Ref's > should not be synonyms as they just declare a relationship of some sort > and one cannot determine if the two authorities are the same entity. I > was wrong, refs have been defined as synonymous for quite some time > meaning that they *cannot* be used to just establish relationships. > > Sorry > > Les > > > contact: =les > sip: =les/(+phone) > chat: =les/skype/chat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: =drummond.reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:19 AM > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [xri] Minutes:Joint XRI & XDI TC Telecon 10AM PT Thursday > 2007- > > 06-21 > > > > Following are the minutes of a joint unofficial telecon of the XRI and > XDI > > TCs at: > > > > Date: Thursday, 21 June 2007 USA > > Time: 10:00AM - 12:00PM Pacific Time > > > > Event Description: > > Weekly unofficial joint call of the XRI and XDI Technical Committees. > > > > ATTENDING > > > > Gabe Wachob > > Les Chasen > > Markus Sabadello > > Drummond Reed > > Wil Tan > > > > > > AGENDA > > > > 1) UPDATE TO XRD SCHEMA FOR XRI RESOLUTION 2.0 WORKING DRAFT 11 > > > > Gabe reported that he and Bill have not yet make progress on the > revisions > > to the XRD schema, but Gabe will try to do so by the end of the week. > > > > # GABE and BILL to complete revisions to the schema & send to > Drummond. > > > > > > 2) EXTENDING CANONICAL ID VERIFICATION TO HTTP(S) URIS > > > > Two special telecons held on this topic over the last week. A slight > > update > > has been posted to the XRI TC wiki: > > > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/CanonicalIdVerification > > > > This proposal is now referenced by the OpenID editors in the following > > writeup of the OpenID recycling issue on the OpenID wiki: > > > > http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Identifier_Recycling > > > > * We discussed the main tenants of the proposal, including the > definition > > of > > synonym in section 3.2.3 of XRI Resolution 2.0 Working Draft 11 ED02. > > > > * It was apparent there were differing understandings of the function > of > > Ref > > elements. It was agreed that the spec should carry an explicit warning > > that > > Refs MUST be used only to represent synonyms for the resolved > identifier > > assigned by an authority other than the authority producing the > current > > XRD, > > and MUST NOT be used to express any other form of relationship between > the > > authorities. > > > > * As the security implications of the extended Canonical ID > verification > > proposal were reviewed, it as agreed that the spec should also include > > warnings that: > > > > a) As with DNS or any other registry-based identifier > > infrastructure, Canonical ID verification depends on trusting each > > authority > > in the resolution chain. > > > > b) Any Canonical ID assigned by an XRI registry under its own > > authority SHOULD not be editable by a registrant. > > > > c) Trusting a Canonical ID without verification can enable > spoofing > > of Canonical IDs. > > > > The following action items were assigned: > > > > # GABE and MARKUS to both take a close look at the extended Canonical > ID > > verification writeup and post any comments. > > > > # DRUMMOND to draft revised text for section 11 once this feedback is > > received. > > > > > > 3) PROGRESS REPORT FOR XRI RESOLUTION 2.O WORKING DRAFT 11 > > > > The current draft, ED02, is at: > > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24286/xri-resolution- > > v2.0- > > wd-11-ed-02.doc > > > > Drummond said he plans to post ED03, containing as many action items > as he > > can finish, before he leaves for the Burton Catalyst conference on > Monday. > > > > > > 4) NEXT CALL > > > > Due to Catalyst travel, we will not hold a telecon next week, but will > > resume our call schedule on Thursday, July 5.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]