From: Eran
Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009
11:58 AM
To: Sakimura Nat; John Bradley
Cc: Dirk Balfanz; Brian Eaton;
njones@ouno.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; Allen Tom
Subject: Re: [xri] Proposed XRD
schema
This depends on how OpenID wants
to do discovery using XRD, but one idea:
The user’s XRD:
<XRD>
<Link>
<Rel>http://specs.openid.net/relation/provider</Rel>
<URI>http://openid.yahoo.com</URI>
</Link>
</XRD>
And openid.yahoo.com’s XRD:
<XRD>
<SubjectType>http://specs.openid.net/role/provider</SubjectType>
<SubjectType>http://specs.openid.net/version/2.1</SubjectType>
<SubjectType>http://specs.openid.net/ext/pape/1.0</SubjectType>
<Link>
<Rel>http://specs.openid.net/relation/op-endpoint</Rel>
<URI>http://openid.yahoo.com/auth</URI>
</Link>
</XRD>
EHL
On 2/18/09 12:54 PM, "Sakimura Nat" <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>
wrote:
Could you kindly give me an
example of <Link> in the OpenID Provider's XRD?
=nat
差出人: Eran Hammer-Lahav [eran@hueniverse.com]
送信日時: 2009年2月18日 1:11
宛先: John Bradley
CC: Dirk Balfanz; Brian Eaton; njones@ouno.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
件名: RE: [xri]
Proposed XRD schema
ResourceType replaces
(Service-level) Type, and demoted to a hint instead of authoritative
information.
Rel is new and is authoritative.
SubjectType is new and is authoritative.
ResourceType and SubjectType will use
the same type values.
Rel can use the same type values but
it has a different meaning (basically add a “my” before, as in “my openid
provider”).
So on your blog page you can have:
<XRD>
<Link>
<Rel>http://specs.openid.net/relation/provider</Rel>
<URI>…</URI>
<ResourceType>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</ResourceType>
<ResourceType>some
openid extensions</ResourceType>
And on the openid provider (pointed
to by the URI above) you can have:
<XRD>
<SubjectType>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</
SubjectType >
<SubjectType>some
openid extensions</ SubjectType >
So the Rel just tells you it is a
provider (not which version or other features). The rest in the first XRD are
hints.
EHL
From: John Bradley [mailto:jbradley@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009
7:54 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: Dirk Balfanz; Brian Eaton; njones@ouno.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Proposed XRD
schema
Eran,
So
I take it that you are thinking that Rel is the replacement for Type.
That
an application searches for one or more Rel links in some application specific
order.
Are
you imagining that an App like openID would have two relationship types
one for a service provider and one for the service itself?
I
would like to go through some example resolution flows before coming to a
conclusion on the schema.
=jbradley
On
17-Feb-09, at 12:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
As I previously wrote (re: both Rel
and ResourceType):
The idea was to preserve the functionality offered by
Service/Type but to redefine it as a hint (in the same sense that MediaType is
now a hint per link semantics). So that the same way to can give a parser a
hint that the URI linked to will serve a JPEG, you can hint that the OpenID
provider will support PAPE. As we know, there are cases where we will trust
hints, allowing us to be more efficient.
EHL
From: John Bradley [mailto:jbradley@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009
4:18 AM
To: Dirk Balfanz
Cc: Brian Eaton; njones@ouno.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Proposed XRD
schema
Dirk,ers
on the
I
am also -1 to the idea of encoding parameters in the Subject type.
My
example of <Rel>http://Subject
tysome.URI.that.indicates.relationsip.is.self.or.sub.service.com <http://some.URI.that.indicates.relationsip.is.self.or.sub.service.com>
</Rel>-
Was
just a example of one way of doing it if we don't want to make SubjectType
extensible.
When
the Meta Data is part of a Link statement it is clear that it is part of the
Link however in the case of the final XRD (the one with the API URI as the
subject. It is less clear where that goes.
If
we are describing an optional part of an API then it is something that the API
URI has a relationship with arguably and could be described in a Link. I
don't know if it should. That depends on what sort of entity model we are
creating for these related XRD.
I
am still not clear on the difference between ResourceType and Rel.
I
suspect one may need to go, because I suspect that they are probably the same
thing in Eran's mind.
If
we are going to keep both, I think one needs to be a hint about the type of XRD
that the URI is pointing at, if the URI is discoverable at all.
I
think there are four of these sort of relationships:
1
The subject is a individual (pointing at someone's blog XRD)
2
The subject is a Service Provider (The XRD will contain multiple Rel types)
3
The subject is a Service (OpenID as an example)
4
The Subject is a API endpoint and this is the end of discovery
Perhaps
there is a relationship between this and the Subject-Type of the target XRD?
I
am unclear on what the XRD of a Service provider would have as it's Subject
type?
Are
people thinking that it would have multiple SubjectTypes one for each service
it provides.
Then
have Links to the individual services like OpenID 2.0.
I
understand that a large part of discovery will be application specific.
More than in XRI 2.0 at least.
However
I think we do need to define a common entity model so that applications can
have a common view of what the XRD are describing.
=jbradley
On
17-Feb-09, at 4:14 AM, Dirk Balfanz wrote:
On
Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
wrote:
On
Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:28 PM, <njones@ouno.com>
wrote:
> How would xsd:any work?
Libraries
would wander through the XML looking for the appropriate
Link element based on Rel and ResourceType. Once they found it, they
would return the entire Link element, and application code can then do
further investigation.
The schemas for individual Link types would include whatever XML
elements are necessary to supply interesting metadata. For example:
<Link priority="10">
<Rel> http://some.URI.that.indicates.relationsip.is.self.or.sub.service.com
</Rel>
<ResourceType>
http://spec.openid.net/auth/2.0/ux/popup
</ResourceType>
<height>500px</height>
<width>450px</width>
</Link>
I
agree that works inside Link elements, where the URI is tucked away neatly
inside the Rel element, and thus separated from other potential metadata. But
inside the SubjectType, it doesn't seem to work as nicely. It would look
something like this:
<SubjectType>
https://spec.openid.net/auth/2.0/ux/popup
<height>500px</height>
<width>450px</width>
</SubjectType>
Is
that the same as this:
<SubjectType>
https://spe
<height>500px</height>
c.openid.net/au
<http://c.openid.net/au>
<width>450px</width>
th/2.0/ux/popup
</SubjectType>
?
That
doesn't seem right...
+1
on using XML parsers, though, and -1 on funny business with query parameters.
Dunno
how I feel about this <Rel>http://some.URI.that.indicates.relationsip.is.self.or.sub.service.com</Rel>-stuff,
though. What's the purpose of that? That's what the XRD top-level section is
for, right?
Dirk.
I'm completely appalled by the notion of encoding that kind of
metadata as additional Rel or ResourceType or query string elements.
We've got XML parsers. We should use them.
Cheers,
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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