[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri-editors] further thinking on mustUnderstand
well... they MAY be, or they may be XRI bound (that is, they are specific tokens for a resolver to use to resolve a specific authority-part subsegment with a specific authority). --- peterd On Friday 04 February 2005 02:43 pm, Dave McAlpin wrote: > I don't think so. Tokens, in your example, apply to authorities. They'd > be placed in XRIDescriptors/XRIDescriptor/Authority/Token. > MustUnderstand would be relative to the Authority, not the XRID. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz] > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:40 PM > To: Dave McAlpin > Cc: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xri-editors] further thinking on mustUnderstand > > On Friday 04 February 2005 02:19 pm, Dave McAlpin wrote: > > Both of these cases seem to argue for MustUnderstand semantics on an > > Authority element, not on the XRID which can describe multiple > > authorities. In the second case especially, a client shouldn't be > > precluded from processing Service elements just because he doesn't > > understand how to pass proper credentials to some resolution > > authority. > > > Is that correct? > > i suppose that depends on where the token extension points are placed... > token > placement is likely to be XRIDescriptors/XRIDescriptor/Token, since > these are > (potentially) unique for each authority, and required for processing > 'next-level' resolution.... in this use case. > > SO the processing would require (a) resolver to process the XRID, > extract the > Token, and add that to the HTTP header for the next resolution step. > that > seems to require modifications to the XRID. > > --- peterd
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]