RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal

["Gabe Wachob" <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>]

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200511/msg00085.html

"On November 14, 2005, the XRI TC unanimously approved XRI Syntax 2.0
Committee Draft 02 as a Committee Specification."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tan, William [mailto:william.tan@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:29 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal
> 
> +1
> 
> What about syntax 2.0?
> 
> 
> --
> http://xri.net/=wil
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Gabe Wachob" <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:45
> To:<xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal
> 
> A number of us had a conversation at IIW this week about the progress on
> XRI specs, and the fact that OpenID 2.0 is, in part, waiting on XRI specs
> to become citeable (ie not draft stage).
> 
> 
> 
> Drummond and I (and several others at the table) agreed that we should
> promote XRI Res 2.0 wd 11 (or something soon after) to a committee spec so
> that the openid community can reference it. The intent here is to document
> what is essentially already being used in the wild, based on our earlier
> drafts and with a very few additional proposals that have come up from
> experience in the wild.
> 
> 
> 
> If we don’t approve XRI Res 2.0 as a committee spec, I am almost certain
> XRI will be pulled out of OpenID core specifications. I can’t guarantee
> that it won’t anyway, but I think it’s really up to us to put up now and
> produce a committee spec that can actually be cited.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to be disciplined on our goal with this release, and need to be
> guided primarily by OpenID adoption concerns. because any substantive
> changes to openid implementations (that aren’t driven by OpenID needs) are
> going to be rejected by the OpenID community at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, there was discussion as well on continuing the work beyond
> 2.0, of course. The proposal was made to call this work 3.0 – something I
> would endorse. This is a separate topic that can be discussed later.
> 
> 
> 
>             -Gabe
> 
> 
>