RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority attribute

["Lindelsee, Mike " <mlindels@visa.com>]

Fair enough.  Even better than example XRIDs might be the use cases that
those XRIDs are used in.  I think having proposed use cases might help
us all come to agreement about how the priority attribute should be
treated.  Does anyone on the list disagree that the resolution spec
should have normative language regarding the semantics of how a client
should treat priority attributes?  If not, are there any proposals for
what those semantics should be?

Mike 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wodjenski, Sharon [mailto:sharon.wodjenski@neustar.biz] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:10 AM
>To: Lindelsee, Mike ; Wachob, Gabe; Drummond Reed; 
>xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: Chasen, Les; Zhang, Ning; Tran, Trung; Davis, Peter
>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor 
>priority attribute
>
>Mike,
>
>I'm not sure any of the documents would be helpful.  They are 
>internal documents for the GRS design and don't cover anything 
>from a client perspective, or address the semantics of the 
>priority attribute.  About the best I could offer would be 
>some example XRIDs to use for discussion.
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:19 PM
>To: Wodjenski, Sharon; Wachob, Gabe; Drummond Reed;
>xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: Chasen, Les; Zhang, Ning; Tran, Trung; Davis, Peter
>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority
>attribute
>
>
>Would any of those documents serve as a starting point for this
>discussion?  I tend to agree with Gabe that if we are going to 
>specify a
>priority attribute, we should also specify the semantics of that
>attribute.  At the very least, this seems needed for interoperability.
>
>As a separate issue, if this topic is going to take some discussion to
>work through, does the current schedule for publishing the specs and
>voting still make sense?
>
>Mike