RE: [xri] Status of secure resolution

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

Gabe:

For the record, I agree with you completely. I posted the message and
multiple choice question because after Xavier's question to me, I wanted
to make sure:

a) everyone on the TC was on the same page about this, and
b) we can take a clear position in the 1.0 syntax and resolution spec
that secure resolution will be considered in a subsequent specification
from the XRI TC.

So, for all other members of the TC who have not weighed in on this
issue, the proposed answer to the question I posed yesterday is "c",
i.e., secure resolution is planned to be addressed in a subsequent
specification from the XRI TC.

Note that this means, based on recent clarifications from Karl Best
about the new OASIS TC process rules, that at the same time we vote for
the XRI 1.0 syntax and resolution spec, we will also vote to amend our
charter to add a secure resolution spec as a future deliverable.

If anyone does NOT agree with this decision, please post now (silence
will be deemed consensus).

Thanks,

=Drummond 


-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:13 AM
To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Status of secure resolution

Drummond-
        I feel strongly about not doing (a) or (b). During our face to
face meeting (see notes attached to
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200302/msg00044.html , we agreed
to commit to the "blue line" (see the scope.vsd in the zip file for the
visualization we were working against) and merely to "think" about the
"red line". (blue line being syntax & resolution, red line being "secure
resolution" and more). I think we specifically agreed to look at
requirements for secure resolution, but to not commit to it. I don't
think we should revisit this decision now.
        I think secure resolution a non-trivial specification effort
don't want to delay the xri syntax & resolution spec. I believe also the
secure resolution could be more contentious and brings up a number of
new technical issues. The other practical issue with doing secure
resolution now is that Dave McAlpin is the person on the editors team
driving the work on this secure resolution and it sounds like he won't
be able to commit significant time in the next two weeks.
        That being said, the two options I see are: 1) come out without
another spec for secure resolution within the TC and 2) not do secure
resolution in the context of the XRI TC.
        I'm actually fine with doing this as a separate spec in the TC
sequenced after the spec (ie option c in drummond's list). I do *not*
want this holding up the basic syntax and resolution spec. We've done
enough thinking in the main spec, to ensure that secure resolution *is*
pluggable and possible, at least according to the informal discussions
I've had with folks about it.
       
        -Gabe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:32 AM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Status of secure resolution
>
>
> XRI TC Members:
>
> As we head into final preparation of the XRI Syntax and Resolution
> Specification 1.0 Committee Draft, Xavier Serret has raised
> the question
> that we left open at the end of our f2f last February: what is the
> status of secure resolution? Are we going to:
>
> a) Cover it normatively in the 1.0 spec,
> b) Cover it non-normatively in the 1.0 spec (say, in an appendix),
> c) Cover it in a subsequent specification from the XRI TC, or
> d) Leave it to the soon-to-be-proposed XDI TC?
>
> We need to close on this quickly so we know how we will treat
> the issue
> in the 08 (gold candidate) draft, so please take a moment to post your
> opinion relative to the above options.
>
> =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/members/leave
> _workgroup.php.
>