RE: [xri] This whole mailto business...

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

Correction to my email - Eran's new draft includes text on https: URIs. Glad
to see that.

=Drummond 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:04 PM
> To: 'George Fletcher'; 'Eran Hammer-Lahav'
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] This whole mailto business...
> 
> I'm generally comfortable with this -- I'd really like HRDD to be one of
> those specs that is so clean and clear it lasts for years. However I
> should
> at least point out that specifying the authority for an email address (RFC
> 2822 Section 3.4.1 calls it a "domain") seems very easy and clean
> (provided
> that the mailto: includes only one email address -- I just found out RFC
> 2368 allows it to include more than one).
> 
> So I think it's more a matter of deciding if the overall principle is that
> HRDD as a spec will not say anything in particular about other URI schemes
> besides http: (and https: - that's still outstanding). That seems like a
> reasonable approach to take.
> 
> In that case I would suggest adding some text explicitly stating this
> scope
> limitation (you already have something like this), e.g., something like:
> 
> 	"Although HRDD MAY be used with URIs from any URI scheme, the
> definition of how to map URIs from non-hierarchical URI schemes is beyond
> the scope of this specification. A specification that defines such a
> mapping
> SHOULD ensure it is unambiguous and SHOULD include adequate security
> considerations."
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Fletcher [mailto:george.fletcher@corp.aol.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:48 AM
> > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [xri] This whole mailto business...
> >
> > +1
> >
> > If more use cases arise it might make sense to have one doc that shows
> > how to map mailto URL's to HRDD but still keep it out of the HRDD spec.
> >
> > Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> > > I think this is a prudent approach. I am generally in favor of letting
> > > any thorny authority issues for non-HTTP URIs to be dealt with by
> > > applications.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > > <eran@hueniverse.com <mailto:eran@hueniverse.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Dave Cridland brought up a good point on the APP list which is
> > >     that mailto URIs don't have an authority section. For some reason,
> > >     I was sure that the entire email address is the authority and is
> > >     parsed based on RFC 3986 section 3.2. But this is incorrect.
> > >     mailto URIs don't have an authority since they do not begin with
> > >     mailto://.
> > >
> > >     This means that in order to support mailto URIs, HRDD must
> > >     explicitly deal with mailto URIs and provide rules as to how to
> > >     extract their authority. This is doable but no longer the clean
> > >     and generic proposal it was meant to be.
> > >
> > >     This is all getting very complicated which leads me to make the
> > >     following suggestion. At this point we have two (theorized) use
> > cases:
> > >
> > >     1. Use emails to register to a site, allowing the site to perform
> > >     discovery and find out where the user's address book it.
> > >     2. Use email identifiers as an OpenID identifier.
> > >
> > >     Both can come up with their own way to go from the email address
> > >     to an XRD document very easily, even using the methods defined by
> > >     HRDD. So there is no *requirement* for us to address this (this
> > >     was covered on the call last week) as XRI doesn't define mailto
> > >     binding.
> > >
> > >     I'm inclined to remove references to mailto URIs from the HRDD
> > >     specification, mostly because I am not inclined to directly
> > >     address authority extraction from a mailto URI path. This doesn't
> > >     solve the scope question of Site-Meta but it moves the problem
> > >     from HRDD to a potential OpenID discovery spec.
> > >
> > >     What do you think?
> > >
> > >     EHL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> > >     To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> that
> > >     generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> > >     https://www.oasis-
> > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --Breno
> > >
> > > +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> > > +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> > > MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> > > PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php