As I said on yesterday's XDI TC call, I
agree with this approach. If we reach the stage where either XRI 1.1 or XDI 1.0
(which is dependent on XRI 1.1) must advance to committee draft and 2396bis or
IRI are still in limbo, then we'll decide what to do at that point. But for
now, let's keep it simple by assuming that we'll use normative references.
=Drummond
From: Lindelsee, Mike
[mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:20 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Timing of next
rev of the XRI spec
I think that coming to a stable draft as
quickly as possible and then holding off on making it a formal revision until
IRI and 2396bis are finalized is the right thing to do. I'd hate to have
to revise the spec again if something changes in either IRI or 2396bis.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin
[mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:53 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Timing of next rev
of the XRI spec
I’m working on a draft of the next rev of XRI, and
I’d _really_ like to make
normative references to IRI and 2936bis. If we do this, however, we’ll
need to stay in draft form until those specs become RFCs. In practical terms,
we’d produce a stable draft, encourage implementation but defer voting on
a formal revision until IRI and 2396bis were formalized as RFCs. This is what
IRI did (it refers to 2396bis as RFCYYYY) so we have a good precedent, but it
also means we’d significantly delay a true revision. I’m interested
in the group’s thoughts on this.
Dave