RE: [xri] Avoid XRI!

["Barnhill, William" <barnhill_william@bah.com>]

Also, my interpretation is that XRI does not have to be centralized.  Our current use cases are all based on global registries, but I think there is no reason you couldn't have Peer-to-Peer XRI resolution. I can see many reasons why that would in fact be a plus.  There would be quite a few issues however. 

 

The point is that it's possible, the spec says that the root GCS authorities you use are implementation dependent though there are the standard globat authorities. You could have GCS authority implementation that is a peer in an authority resolution network for that GC.

 

--
William Barnhill                         Phone: (315) 491-6765
Associate                                   Email: barnhill_william@bah.com
Booz | Allen | Hamilton             i-name: =Bill.Barnhill
"Delivering results that endure"

 

---

From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:paul@socialphysics.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:17 PM
To: 'Gabe Wachob'; 'Markus Sabadello'
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Avoid XRI!

Members of the Eclipse Higgins project have very recently reviewed XRI from an IPR point of view and not found any issues that would prevent its being used in Higgins.

 

-Paul

 

---

From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:09 PM
To: 'Markus Sabadello'
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Avoid XRI!

 

I don’t think there is. To the extent there ever was, we’ve tried very hard to address that uncertainty, and I think we’ve done a good job.

 

When I see people take swipes at XRI based on rumors or without citing facts, I call it FUD. That’s what this is.

 

            -Gabe

 

---

From: markus.sabadello@gmail.com [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Markus Sabadello
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Gabe Wachob
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Avoid XRI!

 

XRI comes with a great deal of patent licensing uncertainty?

Why that?

Markus

On 7/26/07, Gabe Wachob < gabe.wachob@amsoft.net> wrote:

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/06/ieee-ic-decentralized-identity-weitzner.html

 

It's a little disappointing to see FUD like this from Danny Weitzner, but I'm not surprised the drumbeat is continuing from the W3C…

 

"Finally, avoid centralized registries. The Web's hallmark is that anyone cancreate a Web page, without payment, permission, or registration with any centralized entity. (Of course the Internet depends on the Domain Name System, which ICANN manages, but this single registry should be enough.) Some have proposed adding a newkind of URI, called an XRI , to the OpenID standards. XRIs require registration with a central authority, and the technology comes with a great deal of patent licensingun certainty. There's no reason to have to register XRIs with a new ICANN-like entity when we already have enough addressing services on the Internet to support other kinds of URIs. Such bottlenecks should be avoided at all costs."

 

 

 

smime.p7s