Schedule for RC2

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@onename.com>]

First, Mike, thanks for weighing in. I completely agree with you about
the importance of having a really complete, sound spec outweighing a
self-imposed date. Thankfully the $ metadata issue was the only thing
keeping me awake at night (beside all the other non-XRI-spec things ;-),
so if we separate that out I feel quite good about the rest. Adding
canonical form rules, if it makes sense after Dave's proposal, is icing
on the cake.

So here's the proposed schedule: Dave is going to try to post his
proposed rules tomorrow. Due to meetings I have Wed. and Thur., I
probably can't complete my revised text until Friday, however I should
be able to complete it that day (and roll in Dave's text if its done).
That means we should have an RC2 to review by Sat (if anyone's willing)
or worst case Monday. If we can iterate on it early next week, it should
be stable for a vote by next Thursday, which only delays us a week and
means we can celebrate a 1.0 at Thanksgiving.

I vote that we drive really hard for that - it would be good for the
gumption.

Let me know if this is any problem. Meanwhile, Dave and I discussed
whether we should still have a call this Thursday. I think it may be a
good idea to discuss Dave's proposal at a minimum (and any questions I
might have by then), but I'll leave it to Dave to decide (and, if he
decides yes, to set up by sending a msg. to the list). If we hold it I'd
send the call-in details to the list so any TC member can join and
provide us with further feedback.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:17 AM
To: Drummond Reed; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] URGENT: 2 Major Issues with RC1

I think that your proposals for both issues are good ones, Drummond.  I
also think that is is far more important for us to have a complete (in
our eyes at least) spec than to rush and hit a self-imposed date.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 8:15 PM
> To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri-editors] URGENT: 2 Major Issues with RC1
>
>
> Editors:
>
> It's times like this that make me reconsider the job of final spec
> editing coordination. After completely blowing out my schedule for the
> last two weeks trying to get everything done by this Thursday's voting
> deadline, Dave and I just spent 1.5 hours on the phone discussing two
> snags with RC1 that require serious consideration by the Editors as to
> whether we need to take more time to resolve them.
>
> I'm writing this email just to explain the issues. See the
> end of it for
> my conclusion about how we should try to resolve this.
>
> The two issues are:
>
> 1) Separating out Appendix B, the $ space, into a separate spec, and
> 2) Defining the canonical form of an XRI.
>
> Following are details on each.
>
> APPENDIX B - THE $ SPACE
>
> In his comments sent to the Editor's list on RC1b, Dave observed that
> Appendix B is "underspecified". Given the importance of $ metadata to
> XRI architecture, I'm afraid I have to agree with him. It was my
> responsibility to draft this appendix, which has been simply
> as a bullet
> point list of the $ identifiers we have been compiling as we wrote the
> spec, and I admit I put it off until the end (because it was an
> appendix!!).
>
> When I finally got around to drafting the text, I realized
> that some of
> these, like $!, required more than just listing in an appendix. $l and
> $f are already discussed (though I think not enough) in the main spec.
> So are $s and $s.a in the resolution section, and $t in
> Appendix D. But
> $v, which may be the single most important $ identifier of all, and $q
> are not discussed anywhere.
>
> Dave's suggestion, which made me cringe but also made sense,
> is that we
> consider separating out Appendix B into a second spec, which for
> purposes of discussion we called the XRI Metadata
> Specification. One of
> the main reasons we agreed we should consider this is that the $ space
> is likely to evolve fairly rapidly over the next year, and it would be
> nice to be able to rev the Metadata spec separately from the
> main spec.
>
> This of course raises all kinds of questions about how we would deal
> with $ identifiers which are an integral part of the current spec ($f,
> $l, $s, $t). The main ideas Dave and I discussed were to:
>
> a) Specify in the main spec any $ metadata necessary for the
> main spec.
> Otherwise specify that the Metadata spec is authoritative for
> all other
> $ metadata.
>
> b) Specify in the main spec that the Metadata spec will define two
> classes of metadata for the purposes of equivalence - significant and
> insignificant. All insignificant metadata would be separated into one
> space (tentatively $!) so that it can easily be ignored by an XRI
> processor. All other $ metadata SHOULD be considered significant.
>
> CANONICAL FORM
>
> The second point, made by both Gabe and Dave in their
> feedback on RC1b,
> is that we don't really define a canonical form of an XRI. My edit in
> RC1b changed the heading of the "Optional Syntax" subsection in
> Normalization and Comparison to "Canonicalization", but otherwise just
> left it as a set of equivalence rules.
>
> Dave and I discussed this at length and agreed that our instincts tell
> us that given the equivalence rules we have enumerated, it
> would make it
> significantly easier for implementers if we took the time to define
> canonicalization rules. Dave has volunteered to do this if we agree it
> makes sense.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> Right now, having spent 2.5 hours thinking about this (on not enough
> sleep last night), my gut feeling is that, as painful as it is, we
> should do both of the above. It breaks into 2 chunks of work:
>
> 1) Rewriting RC1b to separate out Appendix B and reference a separate
> Metadata Spec (2-3 hours - I would volunteer for this).
> 2) Drafting and integrating the canonicalization rules (3-4
> hours - Dave
> would volunteer for this).
>
> Although theoretically this could be accomplished by Thursday, these
> changes are major enough that they would require another
> round of review
> by the Editors and the TC members. So realistically, we're looking at
> another 2 week cycle (1 week to draft and polish, one week to review
> before a vote).
>
> So, how does everyone else feel about this? Since I'll be offline at
> meetings most of tomorrow, let's try to close this by email
> in the next
> 24 hours so we know what should communicate to the rest of the TC
> members by Wednesday.
>
> =Drummond 
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/membe
rs/leave_workgroup.php.