[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case
Sorry, Les, you’re right - I didn’t
mean to imply that it could ignore syntax-based policies. =Drummond From: Chasen, Les
[mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] Drummond says
“IMHO the authority of an authority server
is sacrosant. It can apply any policy it wants to produce the next XRD.” Hmmm except for where we have already put
policies in place. For example = personal @ organization + dictionary $ system * reassignable ! persistent From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] What the @cordance authority service does
when given the subsegments…
=drummond
*(=drummond) …is up to the @cordance authority
server. I agree that @cordance authority server could decide to consult another
authority server in its response, but it still controls the response it its own
context no matter where it gets the XRD or what it puts in it. For example, it
could: 1) Have a policy that both of the
subsegments above are synonyms in its context and that they return the same
XRD. 2) Have a policy, as Les suggests, that
*(=drummond) will return the XRD (or selected SEPs from XRD) from the =
registry. (See note below.) 3) Have any other policy that applies to
global subsegments and/or local cross-references. IMHO the authority of an authority server
is sacrosant. It can apply any policy it wants to produce the next XRD. What
matters is that: A) Parsing of the next subsegment to be
resolved is always 100% unambiguous for a resolver. B) The resolver always hands the authority
server EXACTLY the next subsegment to be resolved (or all remaining subsegments
to be resolved in lookahead resolution). C) The authority server return a valid XRD
(or an XRDS in the case of lookahead resolution). =Drummond From: Chasen, Les
[mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] I need to stick with simple examples and in this case there
is only one authority, @cordance, in question. under the current proposal
@cordance is asked for both =drummond and *(=drummond) and it returns its own
xrd if one exists within @cordance. We have never discussed whether @cordance
may go to the = authorty server for drummond when it is contained within
*(=drummond). I think that maybe interesting behavior. From: John Bradley Les, I started off with that position. I now think they are
separate queries to the next authority server. I think that the parenthesized statement may contain multiple
subsegments is the important thing. Once we have a way to encapsulate multiple subsegments to be handed to
an authority server it is hard to stop someone from only putting in a
single subsegment. in the cross ref. I think the simple principle is that things
in parenthesis are opaque to the resolver and handed to the next
authority server and things not in parenthesis are resolved left to
right one subsegment at a time. I also don't think that in ether case @cordance is being asked anything
about the global =drummond if one exists. In the first case the authority server for @cordance is being asked for
a XRD for the subsegment =drummond the = is treated as part of the subsegment
itself In the second case the authority server for @cordance is being
asked for a XRD for the subsegment *(=drummond) I think the latter could be taken that the authority server may look
someplace else to get the XRD for the cross reference. I think in the former case =drummond is a subsegment in its
authority server. The question is if it is just a regular subsegment is using = as a
separator going to confuse people. =drummond is just a regular subsegment with
some inference by Cordance that its =drummond has something to do
with the global =drummond though XRI makes no such claim other things using XRI
like XDI may. John B. On 26-Nov-08, at 9:23 AM, Chasen, Les wrote: Let's not complicate this with +phone. My question is does
@cordance return a different xrd for =drummond and *(=drummond)? This proposal
says yes. I disagree with this behavior. I think @cordance is being asked for
its representation of =drummond in both cases. From: John
Bradley From a XRI resolution perspective I see a difference in what
@cordance's authority server is asked for. @cordance=drummond
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond @cordance=drummond+phone
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond
, @cordance=drummond is asked for the XRD for +phone @cordance*(=drummond)
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for *(=drummond) @cordance*(=drummond+phone)
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for *(=drummond+phone) Parenthesis in the first segment tell the resolver to treat the contents
as an opaque string and pass it to the next authority server. The resolver Parenthesis in the path are
not significant to the resolver they would
be matched during service selection as they are now. One thing we did start talking about at the F2F is what the syntax to
indicate special processing on a cross reference. An example: $XRD*(https://boing.com)*marty Is $XRD a node that has as its authority service one that performs XRD
resolution on the next subsegment. So is a $ word in XRI resolution a node that points to
a specialized authority service? Certainly a resolver has the option
of shortcutting resolution through querying the $XRD
authority server if it understands the $XRD word. Under Drummond's proposal we do have to have a theory about what + and
$ in the first subsegment resolve to. John B. On 26-Nov-08, at 6:51 AM, Chasen, Les wrote: Hi Giovanni - From: Giovanni
Bartolomeo Hello Les, Hi Giovanni. I had a chance to read this. While I like what
you guys |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]