[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] versioning of authirity section [Issue 5]
More specifically, I have several open questions and points w/r/t versioning naming authorities: 1) What implication does this have for equivalence rules? (not specific to versions-in-the-naming-authority) That is, are two URIs with different version tags (or one with a version tag and one without) *ever* equivalent? URI schemes should specify equivalence rules - generally the default is "syntactic character-by-character equivalence" (usually with some ignorance of case for domain names) 2) What implication for the resolutoin process (RDDDS for URIs). I see two cases: a) Version parts are interpreted "opaquely" -- that any version string (including the ':', ',', etc leading characters) are essentially unparsed by a resolver. In this case, i think DDDS-style resolution isn't really affected. b) Version parts need to be "canonicalized" or otherwise parsed to make sure they are resolved correctly (from a semantic point of view). It seems to me that #2 is the more likely situation since how does a resolver understand that a version of the naming authority 'as of January 20th' is the same one as that which is in place today? DDDS (and RDDDS) do resolution based on pattern matching - it seems to me that versions in the naming authority parts would totally eliminate DDDS as a viable resolution mechanism. I don't think versioning breaks the HTTP resolution, but it may break some caching semantics (because things which are not syntactically equal may in fact be semantically equal - need to think this through). 3) I tend to think the distinction between XRI URIs (versioned namespace authorities) and XRI URNs (not versioned, since I think this breaks the semantics of "once and forever assigned..") makes sense. Maybe the answer to #2 is that versioning is important in XRI URIs and that DDDS simply isn't an option there? -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:38 AM > To: OASIS XRI > Subject: RE: [xri] versioning of authirity section > > > I agree completely that versioning the naming authority could > be useful in a number of contexts, but I'm still trying to > understand what exactly that would mean when it comes to > resolution. For instance, how would versioned naming > authorities work in a DDDS-style resolution? > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz] > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:38 AM > > To: OASIS XRI > > Subject: [xri] versioning of authirity section > > > > > > (In case you haven't noticed, I am finally catching up on xri > > activities :-) > > > > line 159: > > [ISSUE: It would be nice if naming authority parts were NOT > > versioned to > > make resolution simpler. Then, only the local part segments have > > versioning info in them, and interpretation of this versioning > > information would be local to the client and ultimate leaf > > directory. ] > > > > However, for URI-type XRI's, it MAY prove usefull to allow > > versioning of > > the authority part: > > > > xri://some.domain.int[;2001-03-04T20:15:40Z]/foo/bar > > > > esp. since URIs are re-assignable. This allows for "This was the > > authority at time T". > > > > --- peterd > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]