[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.
|
Aren’t we talking about one
authority in this scenario? It just happens to have two CIDs.
That authority is a valid parent no matter which CID the child used as a root …
or atleast I think it is. If this is not true a merge of
authorities with children are a bit more complicated. To do a merge, all
the children would have to go through some sort of migration so as to pass CID
validation. From: Steven Churchill
[mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] Gabe, I’m guilty of given the
“what” but not the “why”.
The following is
what is meant by canonicalID verification: If I resolve an authority XRI for an XRD with cid=“true”,
and a [highest-priority] canonicalID is returned in XRD, then that XRD is guaranteed to be produced by the parent of the
canonicalID. --- The above is from page 5 of my article at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/22395/xri-polyarchy-article.pdf. An XRD cannot be “produced” by
two authorities. For example, an XRD cannot be produced by both the parent of
the old authority and the parent of the new authority. Thus the
highest-priority Canonical IDs must be proper synonym paths. ~ Steve From: Steven Churchill
[mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] 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] 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] 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] 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] Drummond, Attached are my changes for section 11. I still owe the changes for Appendix E. (These are small.) ~ Steve |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]