Re: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.

["Chasen, Les" <les.chasen@neustar.biz>]

Title: Re: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.

It seems both CIDs need to be used.  If I merge two existing trees by merging a root node some children will have one of the synonym cid and other children will have the other cid.  They all should be valid.


--------------------------
http://xri.net/=les.chasen


----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Churchill <steven.churchill@xdi.org>
To: 'Gabe Wachob' <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>; xri@lists.oasis-open.org <xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Mon Jun 04 18:53:02 2007
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.

Gabe,



Canonical ID verification only takes place for canonical identifier paths. These are represented in the XRD as the set of highest priority CanonicalIDs.



Under a merge, the “old” and the “new” Canonical IDs could not both be canonical identifier paths, because canonical identifier paths MUST be proper synonym paths. This is explained in section 11.2.7.3. In English: the old canonical identifier path cannot represent an absolute identity for the merged authority.



Therefore the old canonical identifier path must be relegated to a lower-priority Canonical ID post merge. It is not a canonical identifier path for the new authority, and it is not verified under CanonicalID verification.



Bet its all clear now. J



~ Steve





________________________________

From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:59 PM
To: 'Steven Churchill'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.



But in the case of authority merge, you would say, the canonical id’s from the two authorities should be of the same priority then?



            -Gabe



________________________________

From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:32 PM
To: 'Gabe Wachob'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.



Gabe,



The text intends to say this: only the highest priority CanonicalIDs are validated under Canonical ID verification. (Note that there may be more than one with the same highest priority, and if so, they are all validated.)



There may be other lower-priority Canonical IDs as well, but these are not validated under Canonical ID verification. These would be present, for example, in the case of an authority merge.



~ Steve





________________________________

From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:53 PM
To: 'Steven Churchill'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.



Question:



1)   In reading the first page, it looks like there is only one canonical ID ever legally allowed in an XRD (the one with the highest priority) – I thought the point was that canonical ID verification would result in a legal CanonicalID and depending on how you got to the XRD, a specific CanonicalID would be “verified” or not, depending on the resolution path to get to the XRD. This is unrelated to “priority” attribute. Are you saying this is NOT the case?







________________________________

From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:59 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.



Drummond,



Attached are my changes for section 11.



I still owe the changes for Appendix E. (These are small.)



~ Steve