RE: [xri] Status of secure resolution

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

Drummond-
	I feel strongly about not doing (a) or (b). During our face to face meeting (see notes attached to http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200302/msg00044.html , we agreed to commit to the "blue line" (see the scope.vsd in the zip file for the visualization we were working against) and merely to "think" about the "red line". (blue line being syntax & resolution, red line being "secure resolution" and more). I think we specifically agreed to look at requirements for secure resolution, but to not commit to it. I don't think we should revisit this decision now. 
	I think secure resolution a non-trivial specification effort don't want to delay the xri syntax & resolution spec. I believe also the secure resolution could be more contentious and brings up a number of new technical issues. The other practical issue with doing secure resolution now is that Dave McAlpin is the person on the editors team driving the work on this secure resolution and it sounds like he won't be able to commit significant time in the next two weeks.
	That being said, the two options I see are: 1) come out without another spec for secure resolution within the TC and 2) not do secure resolution in the context of the XRI TC. 
	I'm actually fine with doing this as a separate spec in the TC sequenced after the spec (ie option c in drummond's list). I do *not* want this holding up the basic syntax and resolution spec. We've done enough thinking in the main spec, to ensure that secure resolution *is* pluggable and possible, at least according to the informal discussions I've had with folks about it. 
	
	-Gabe

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:32 AM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Status of secure resolution
> 
> 
> XRI TC Members:
> 
> As we head into final preparation of the XRI Syntax and Resolution
> Specification 1.0 Committee Draft, Xavier Serret has raised 
> the question
> that we left open at the end of our f2f last February: what is the
> status of secure resolution? Are we going to: 
> 
> a) Cover it normatively in the 1.0 spec,
> b) Cover it non-normatively in the 1.0 spec (say, in an appendix),
> c) Cover it in a subsequent specification from the XRI TC, or
> d) Leave it to the soon-to-be-proposed XDI TC?
> 
> We need to close on this quickly so we know how we will treat 
> the issue
> in the 08 (gold candidate) draft, so please take a moment to post your
> opinion relative to the above options.
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave
> _workgroup.php.
>