RE: [xri] OpenID Delegating relationship in XRD

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

Drummond Reed wrote on 2009-09-04:
> So if we can solve the problem by not explicitly listing the
> non-XRD-namespace elements we use for sigs (ds:KeyInfo and
> ds:Signature), but instead treating them as "formal extensions", I
> really like that solution.

It's not as awkward with KeyInfo as it is with Signature, frankly. I would
argue that top-level XRD extensions aren't as common, so I don't know how
important it is to do it there, but I suppose you could.

One consequence is that the Signature wouldn't be in a predictable location,
so I guess that's why I wouldn't be as enthused about it there.

> If we did that, how specifically would you suggest going about documenting
> the use of elements from the ds: namespace in the spec. Just referencing
> them in the Signature Processing section?

I think you'd leave them documented in the text the same way, just not list
them in the schema.

Alternatively, in the case of KeyInfo, if you look at the text now, there's
absolutely nothing in the spec that really says what to do with it. I could
make the argument that it doesn't even have to be mentioned here.

-- Scott