CANCELLED: XRI TC Telecon today (Thursday 2/11)

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

Per this thread, we won't be holding the call today. The next call will be at the regular time next week.

=Drummond

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com> wrote:

I vote for skipping too. I will be working with Will today on
implementing the changes we discussed last meeting on the XRI X.509
Trust profile and we hope to post a revised draft soon, in time for
discussion next week.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:58, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> We can skip it today.
>
>
>
> EHL
>
>
>
> From: drummond.reed@gmail.com [mailto:drummond.reed@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Drummond Reed
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:12 AM
> To: Breno de Medeiros
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Scott Cantor; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: XRI TC call today (Thursday)?
>
>
>
> I haven't seen anything about a WD 14 draft being posted yet or any other
> traffice since 2/5. Should we hold a call tomorrow? I might have a conflict
> myself - I don't know yet - but unless we have a new WD ready, perhaps
> better to let Will and Eran use the time to post one.
>
> So right now I'll assume no call unless Will or Eran or Breno or someone
> thinks we need it. Please post if you do.
>
> =Drummond
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 08:31, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>> I'm saying that 'the Subject identified the resource' is all we should
>> say. But that we should also say that for the purpose of comparing the
>> subject URI to other URIs, scheme-specific rules must be used.
>
> Great! Ship it :)
>
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno@google.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:30 AM
>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>>> Cc: Scott Cantor; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> Subject: Re: [xri] What is this XRD is for?
>>>
>>> Forgetting the whole thing about Alias for a while, you are saying that
>>> we
>>> don't have to describe how the Subject refers to the resource?
>>> (e.g., applications should normalize the Subject in a scheme-dependent
>>> fashion)? Of course applications are free to define further equivalence
>>> conditions.
>>>
>
>

--
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)