RE: [xri] Top Ten XRI Requirements

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

I think anytime we see a ambiguity or confusion (even temporary) like this,
we should think about whether folks outside the effort are going to be more
confused than we are. 

While I agree that delegation technically doesn't imply hierarhical, Peter's
initial assumption would, I think, be a common one. Certainly, Peter has
just a lot of experience in this area and I think people many people reading
these documents are going to have similar backgrounds.

Maybe we should add a note amplifying the notion that delegation doesn't
neccesarily imply hierarchy. 

Its also unclear to me what the official status of these "top ten" are, and
whether they are going to actually be formal requirements. They have not yet
been integrated into the requirements strawman (Drummond and I need to
connect on this). I think the top ten overlap significantly with that
document. Drummond has positioned the top ten as a "powerpoint version" of
the requirements we already have. 

Regardless, good conversation to have.

	-Gabe





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:30 AM
> To: xavier serret
> Cc: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] Top Ten XRI Requirements
> 
> 
> You are right, xavier.  I am too close the heirachical things 
> i fear :-)
> 
> --- peterd
> 
> xavier serret wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > Maybe I'm miss-interpreting this but "delegation" does not imply
> > "hierarchy" but just a directed graph (from which a tree is 
> a notorious
> > example). Interpreted like this I'm fine with the text.
> > 
> > Xavier.
> > 
> > --
> > Xavier Serret.     Tel  +33 44236 4543
> > Corporate R&D Strategy @ Gemplus
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz]
> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:50 PM
> > To: Drummond Reed
> > Cc: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'
> > Subject: Re: [xri] Top Ten XRI Requirements
> > 
> > 
> > Drummond Reed wrote:
> > <snip/>
> > 
> >>5) Peer-to-peer: the ability for any resource to serve as 
> its own root
> >>identifier authority (i.e., no centralized or absolute authority
> > 
> > required).
> > 
> >>6) Unlimited federation: the ability for identifier authority to be
> >>delegated to any depth.
> >>
> >>7) Context addressability: the ability for a resource to be 
> identified in
> >>the context of another resource.
> >><snip/>
> > 
> > 
> > I am not certain that the "federation" decsription is quite 
> in line with
> > the industries (recent) understanding of the term. Here, as 
> stated, it
> > implies a heirarchical relationship, but federations (as 
> defined in my
> > mind based on the Liberty Alliance activities and working 
> definitions),
> > is more closely related to peer-to-peer.  that si to say:
> > 
> > Unlimited Federation: allows for the identifier authority 
> to construct
> > arbitrary associations with other authorities identifiers.
> > 
> > I think this is more consitant with want is reflected, 
> then, in items 5
> > and 7
> > 
> > --
> > --- peterd
> > Sr Security Architect
> > Neustar, Inc.           smtp:   peter.davis@neustar.biz
> > (571) 434 5516          jabber: peter.davis@jabber.neustar.biz
> > 
> > <Quote type="random">
> > Touch a scientist and you touch a child.
> > <Author>Ray Bradbury</Author>
> > </Quote>
> > 
> > PGP Fingerprint:
> > 8994 8774 B682 3A04 B304  C4A2 D9DD 7E5B 8AAC 2D00
> 
> -- 
> --- peterd
> Sr Security Architect
> Neustar, Inc.		smtp:   peter.davis@neustar.biz
> (571) 434 5516		jabber: peter.davis@jabber.neustar.biz
> 
> <Quote type="random">
> Touch a scientist and you touch a child.
> <Author>Ray Bradbury</Author>
> </Quote>
> 
> PGP Fingerprint:
> 8994 8774 B682 3A04 B304  C4A2 D9DD 7E5B 8AAC 2D00
>