[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200511/msg00085.html "On November 14, 2005, the XRI TC unanimously approved XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 02 as a Committee Specification." > -----Original Message----- > From: Tan, William [mailto:william.tan@neustar.biz] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:29 PM > To: Gabe Wachob; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal > > +1 > > What about syntax 2.0? > > > -- > http://xri.net/=wil > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Gabe Wachob" <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net> > Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:45 > To:<xri@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal > > A number of us had a conversation at IIW this week about the progress on > XRI specs, and the fact that OpenID 2.0 is, in part, waiting on XRI specs > to become citeable (ie not draft stage). > > > > Drummond and I (and several others at the table) agreed that we should > promote XRI Res 2.0 wd 11 (or something soon after) to a committee spec so > that the openid community can reference it. The intent here is to document > what is essentially already being used in the wild, based on our earlier > drafts and with a very few additional proposals that have come up from > experience in the wild. > > > > If we don’t approve XRI Res 2.0 as a committee spec, I am almost certain > XRI will be pulled out of OpenID core specifications. I can’t guarantee > that it won’t anyway, but I think it’s really up to us to put up now and > produce a committee spec that can actually be cited. > > > > We have to be disciplined on our goal with this release, and need to be > guided primarily by OpenID adoption concerns. because any substantive > changes to openid implementations (that aren’t driven by OpenID needs) are > going to be rejected by the OpenID community at this point. > > > > In addition, there was discussion as well on continuing the work beyond > 2.0, of course. The proposal was made to call this work 3.0 – something I > would endorse. This is a separate topic that can be discussed later. > > > > -Gabe > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]