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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

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

Subject: RE: [xri] Requirements Feedback from Visa

Actually, if I am not mistaken, we are just addressing the needs for group
addressing and not the implementation, as we are now talking about the
requirement. I agree that polymorphism is almost mandatory in the

Nat Sakimura

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peterd@neustar.biz] 
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 6:44 AM
To: Sakimura, Nat
Cc: 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'; Drummond Reed (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [xri] Requirements Feedback from Visa

The notion of groups is something i have noodled for a while. I
concure that the ability to address _groups_ is terribly usefull, i can't 
help but wonder if it needs to be specified seperately (read "semantically 
different") than an _individual_ identifier.  I think begin able to 
express either using the same construct would be terribly powerfull... 

Disambiguating _group_ vs. _individual_ is, IMHO, a metadata question, and 
not something reflected in the identifier itself.

--- peterd

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Sakimura, Nat wrote:

> Gabe, 
> [snip]
> > 
> > * Do we need to mention addresses that support the concept of
> or
> > "broadcast"? More generally, do we need to have a concept of "groups" in
> > (as distinct from individual resources).
> > 
> Concept of groups is very useful. We were doing some prototyping on XNS
> server for last 3 months, and "group identity" was very useful. 
> [snip]
> > 471+: This is perhaps and awkward placesment of this requirement (GMW: I
> > don't remember who's comment this is, but I can't figure out a better
> > placement)
> > 
> I cannot think of any other place either. In fact, this requirement is
> almost redundant because this is almost automatically granted.
> it does not to have it spelled out here just to make sure. 
> > 476+: Probably should lose the word "veronymity" in this requirement
> > a) nobody knows about it and b) it should probably be stated as (at the
> end
> > of the rquirement) ".. and support the ability to make assertions about
> the
> > verfiability of the presented identifiers" (or something like that).
> > However, isn't this outside the scope of the XRI spec?
> Same as above. Almost redundant. 

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