RE: [xri-editors] Proposed XRI Editor's Call Thurs 11/4 9am Pacific

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

I could not entirely tell, from the long thread last week, whether all the
ABNF issues raised in the email from Gabe & Mike on 10/22 were closed. But
if Mike says they are, then they are, and we don't need to cover it on the
call.

As far as the 1.1 vs. 2.0 issue, the main argument I heard from DaveM and
Nat at Digital ID World was that a new spec should use a new full rev number
if it is not backward compatible with the previous rev number. This was the
decision the SSTC made about taking SAML to 2.0 rather than 1.2. (Arguably
you could say that SAML 1.1 wasn't mature yet either.)

I agree that XRI 1.0 is not "mature" in the sense Mike is using. But I also
agree with Dave and Nat that the new version is not backwards compatible. So
if apply the not-backwards-compatible rule, we'd be forced to go to 2.0.

Dave, Nat: please step in here and flesh out these arguments.

=Drummond 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:14 AM
To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposed XRI Editor's Call Thurs 11/4 9am Pacific


If there are any remaining ABNF issues, could someone summarize them in mail
before the call?  I don't think that there are any remaining issues from my
perspective.

Re the version number, my only concern about going to 2.0 is that I think of
specs with 2.0+ numbers as generally being relatively mature, tested
specifications.  XRI doesn't yet meet that criteria for me.  If possible,
could anyone with an opinion about this please post to the list -- it would
be nice to have a chance to think about the arguments for and against before
we get on the call.

Thanks,

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 10:38 AM
>To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [xri-editors] Proposed XRI Editor's Call Thurs 11/4 
>9am Pacific
>
>
>
>XRI Editors:
>
>After the many productive conversations we had leading up to 
>and at Digital
>ID World last week, we now need to: 
>
>a) close on any remaining ABNF issues (which I believe are all 
>minor at this
>point).
>b) decide whether the next version will be called XRI 1.1 or 
>2.0 (a subject
>DaveM and Nat brought up at Digital ID World).
>c) lay out a game plan for drafting the new spec document.
>
>Gabe and Mike proposed that we start with a 1hr. telecon 
>tomorrow (Thursday)
>morning at 9am Pacific. Since Nat may still be in S.F. (where 
>he was headed
>after Digital ID World), I'm hoping that time might work for him.
>
>If that doesn't work, the alternate times are early Friday 
>morning PT or
>late Friday afternoon PT.
>
>Please reply as to: a) 9am PT tomorrow works for you, or b) if 
>not, what
>time Friday morning or Friday afternoon PT works for you.
>
>We'll send out a telecon # as soon as we nail down the time.
>
>=Drummond 
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/members/leave_workg
roup.php.


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/members/leave_workg
roup.php.