RE: [xri] subject sets (also sort of: Agenda for August 6, 2009 call)

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote on 2009-08-08:
> That's what we set to do. If the trust section does not provide this as a
> complete solution, it is pointless.

I'm not trying to prevent your complete solution, I'm just talking about how
it should be structured as a matter of spec design.

There can't be *one* trust model for XRD. That's never going to fly. There
are obvious points of flexibility, and anywhere you start connecting XRD to
something like X.509, that's got to be pretty adapatable. If you need to
profile it down for particular use cases (e.g. requiring self-assertion),
then that can be included, and even required for conformance purposes.

-- Scott