FW: [xri] tag for local scope comment

["Lindelsee, Mike " <mlindels@visa.com>]

Forwarding for Marty Schleiff... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Lindelsee, Mike 
Cc: Dave McAlpin; Drummond Reed
Subject: RE: [xri] tag for local scope comment

Hi Mike,

I can't yet seem to get a reply through to the xri@lists.oasis-open.org
list, so I'll just repy to you. Forward if you see fit.

Boeing has spent several months trying to figure out if we should use
XRI, and if we do, then how we should use XRI. There was no usage
profile, or established best practices, or recommendations for general
business use to guide us. We just sucked up lots of time from Dave and
Drummond (as we continue to do). Most companies can't invest this kind
of time, and certainly Drummond and Dave can't spend that level of
effort to help get every company going. 

A working group of the Network Applications Consortium has convened to
try to define an XRI Usage Profile for general business requirements.
We'll be trying to influence vendors to honor that profile with their
commercial products. I think the likelihood of support in commercial
products will be greater for tags specified for universal use instead of
tags in the + namespace. Also, someone else could start using +oid or
+dn with different definitions, and what's a vendor product to do? 

Thx,

Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(425) 957-5667

-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:52 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] tag for local scope comment

After looking at the clarification posted on the wiki, I'm still
wondering why a new metadata tag is needed for this purpose.  Wouldn't
using the + namespace (which is already supported in the specs) be
sufficient?  E.g., identifier segments (or subsegments) could be tagged
as follows (to draw from the examples on the wiki page):

  (+x)/123456
  (+oid)/1234-5679-9999
  (+dn)/some-distinguished-name-syntax

Etc.  

What are the requirements that are leading to an addition to the spec
for this issue?

Mike 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:59 PM
>To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [xri] tag for local scope comment
>
>Mike,
>
>I got the answers today. I posted my much-improved understanding of the

>requirements on the discussion section of the proposal page at:
>
>	
>http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/Xri2Cd02/MetaData/I2LocalScope#h
>ead-595dc3b32
>7ad298d3c81b3cf36df38ec07ea7245
>
>I hope this helps clarify the intent (it certainly did for me).
>
>=Drummond
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:35 AM
>To: 'Lindelsee, Mike '; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [xri] tag for local scope comment
>
>Mike,
>
>Good point. In posting the writeup I was just trying to capture what 
>I'd understood about their need for a $tag for this particular 
>identifier type from members of the Core Identifier Workgroup 
>(http://www.opengroup.org/projects/coreid/).
>
>I'll reflect your message back to them and see what they say.
>
>=Drummond
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:49 PM
>To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [xri] tag for local scope comment
>
>After looking over the proposal for this issue, I have a fundamental 
>question about this proposal.
>
>The first sentence in the motivation section says that a tag is needed 
>to "explicitly declare that a namespace is locally scoped and thus must

>be placed in the context of an authority to be globally unique."
>
>Isn't this just basic XRI syntax?  I.e.,
>
>  xri://<authority-part>/<local-part>
>
>By definition, the local-part can only be understood in the context of 
>the authority-part. This already guarantees global uniqueness (assuming

>an authority doesn't have multiple entries for the same subsegment -- 
>which is likely a good assumption).
>
>The example given is that of a 7 digit employee number system. 
> Wouldn't
>the requirement be met just by using the following XRI?
>
>  xri://@example.company/1234567
>
>Or if a more hierarchical XRI were desired, something to the effect of:
>
>  xri://@example.company/id/1234567
>
>Mike
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
>OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
>OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
>OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php