OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xdi] CATERINA, a project proposal


Thank you very much for this more detailed information about the CATERINA
project. In reading through it, it sounds like a perfect fit for XDI.

I will bring it to the attention of companies I think might be interested,
and I urge other TC members to do the same.

I noted a few items of feedback for section 6, Links:

* Under Digital Identity and Privacy, you mention "OASIS I-Names
initiative". OASIS is the home of the XRI Technical Committee upon which
i-names is based, but i-name registry services is an initiative of XDI.org.
So I'd suggest rephrasing this to "XDI.org I-Names initiative based on OASIS
XRI digital identifier standard"

* LID (Lightweight Identity) is mentioned but OpenID is not. While LID is
still distinct, much of the effort behind it (Johannes Ernst and Netmesh) is
now behind OpenID. So my suggestion would be to update this reference to
"OpenID (openid.net), including LID, SXIP, and I-Names".

* Under Digital Identity and Privacy, I don't see any mention of OASIS SAML
or WS-Trust/Cardspace, both which seem relevant to this area.

I hope this feedback helps.



-----Original Message-----
From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:03 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xdi] CATERINA, a project proposal

Dear All,

here are some information about the project proposal I mentioned 
during last phone call. I attach a brief summary of the project proposal.

For what concerns the participation of US organizations, I've 
received the following clarifications:

"Industrialised third countries (such as Australia, Canada and the 
USA) can participate under the FP7 'Rules for participation', but 
under their own funding, unless specifically set out differently in 
the relevant work programme."
And the exception is referred to the fact that there is an ABSOLUTE 
NEED to have a given company in a project for the project's 
competition. This however would be very difficult to prove.

In the past there has been a possibility for US companies taking part 
at EU projects to be funded by US NSF, however, I don't know if this 
is still valid.

Also this link may help http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html.

Looking forward to hear from you!
Best Regards,


At 01.41 23/03/2007, Drummond Reed wrote:
>Following are the minutes of the joint unofficial telecon of the XRI and
>TCs at:
>Date:  Thursday, 21 March 2007 USA
>Time:  10:00AM - 12:00PM Pacific Time
>Event Description:
>Weekly unofficial joint call of the XRI and XDI Technical Committees.
>Steve Churchill
>Gabe Wachob
>Drummond Reed
>Wil Tan
>Les Chasen
>Hotel and registration discount deadlines are NOW! See
>         http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2007/index.php
>Giovanni Bartolomeo sent a message to the list this week about a new
>he and his colleagues are engaged in that can very effectively use XDI:
>         http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/200703/msg00012.html
>In response to requests for more information, he took the following action
># GIOVANNI to send more details to the email list about the Catalina
>and how U.S. companies may be able to participate.
>We discussed the writeup at:
>         http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/ServiceRefs
>Key discussion points:
>* We realized another limitation to the current WD 10 mechanisms for
>distributed XRDS document management, which is that authority refs can only
>be followed in one direction, i.e., there is no "backtracking". This means
>that an XRDS author can't publish a "tree" of authority refs, only a
>* Service refs would solve that problem, and also allow XRI authors to
>control the ref being followed.
>* We discussed how service refs would work with CanonicalID verification,
>and agreed that the target XRDS would need to have matching CanonicalIDs to
>the source XRDS.
>* We agreed that HTTPS trusted resolution would not be affected as long as
>the ref URI was an https URI.
>* We discussed how service refs would work with SAML trusted resolution and
>agreed that it should implement exactly the same algorithm as currently
>specified in WD 10, i.e., the source XRD would publish the Keyinfo and
>ProviderID of the target XRD. The only question was the use of the Keyinfo
>NOTE: Drummond reviewed the SAML trusted res flow in WD10. The Keyinfo and
>ProviderID elements are already specified in the Service block, so the
>same model of SAML trusted res that current applies to the $res*auth
>can apply to any other service that uses a Service Ref.
>We continue to make steady progress but need to keep going. A special call
>of the syntax team is scheduled for later today. We hope to have this
>by next week's call. The current status appears at:
>         http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/XriAbnf2dot1
>         http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/GlobalSubsegments

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]