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] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)


Well, we do the same thing everyone does, i.e. create an attribute of type xs:id. We could also do something like SAML and give developers notice that this approach will change once xml:id is available.

 


From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:49 AM
To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; Dave McAlpin; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

 

So is the ultimate conclusion that we go with Dave's suggestion and do the same thing as SAML 2.0?

 

=Drummond

 


From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

 

I should have said at the end of the second paragraph "This means currently that a "generic" (ie non-schema-specific) digital signature validation can *NOT* be applied.   "

 

    -Gabe

 


From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:16 PM
To: Dave McAlpin; Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

Both Dave and I think referring to a normative xml:id spec would be best. However, such a normative spec doesn't currently exist. Its been in w3c "last call" for a bit of time, but its not clear to me that it will emerge soon.

 

So, if we are going to close up this work soon, I guess we don't have much of a choice but to go with the previous proposal for identifying elements which are to be signed. Its a little problematical from a practical point of view (you can't know which attribute is being referred to in an xml signature without the schema for the element being signed), but everyone is now living with this issue. This means currently that a "generic" (ie non-schema-specific) digital signature validation can be applied.   

 

My guess is that xml:id will pop up as a normative spec soon after we publish XRI 2.0 (murphy's law).

 

    -Gabe

 


From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:22 AM
To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

Gabe can probably do a better job than I can. Basically W3C is providing a standard ID attribute for XML and the current XRID schema references the draft of that standard. We should definitely use it when it’s available, but I don’t think we should be blocked on it. In the meantime it’s easy to define our own ID attributes of type xs:ID.

 

Here’s how SAML 2.0 handled it – “Note: It is anticipated that the World Wide Web Consortium will standardize a global attribute for holding ID-typed values, called xml:id [XML-ID]. The Security Services Technical Committee plans to move away from SAML-specific ID attributes to this style of assigning unique identifiers as soon as practicable after the xml:id attribute is standardized.”

 

I’m suggesting we should do something similar.

 

Dave

 

 


From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Dave McAlpin; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

 

Dave, can you explain this dependency a bit further to those of us who might not be as close to this issue?

 

=Drummond

 


From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:20 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] xml:id (was RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS)

 

Actually, we’re also dependent on xml:id which is still in draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/). I’m inclined to remove this dependency in 2.0 and add it in a subsequent draft, maybe with a note that that’s our intention (which is how it’s handled in SAML 2.0). Does anyone feel strongly one way or the other?

 

Dave

 


From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:16 AM
To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS

 

The current draft is in Mike’s hands right now. I’ll update the references as soon as I get it back from him.

 


From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:12 AM
To: Dave McAlpin; 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS

 

Good point, Dave. Still, having 3986 (URI) and 3987 (IRI) to reference is huge. When are you planning to update the references in the current editor's draft of the Syntax spec? I plan to make one more pass through it before Friday's call.

 

=Drummond

 


From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:03 AM
To: Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS

 

We’re also dependent on SAML 2.0 which is still in committee draft.

 


From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:44 AM
To: Dave McAlpin; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS

 

Woowoo!!!

 

I think we can now rely entirely on normative specs. The timing of this couldn't have been better. Hopefully we'll be able to be the first open specification normatively citing 3986 and 3987...

 

    -Gabe

 


From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:26 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] IRI and 2396bis are now RFCS

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3986.txt

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3987.txt

 

 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005

 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005

 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005

 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.8.1 - Release Date: 1/27/2005



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