[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 implementation. 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] > > > GENERAL COMMENTS > > > > * Do we need to mention addresses that support the concept of "multicast" > or > > "broadcast"? More generally, do we need to have a concept of "groups" in > XRI > > (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. > > > LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTS > [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. Nonetheless, > it does not to have it spelled out here just to make sure. > > > 476+: Probably should lose the word "veronymity" in this requirement since > > 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]