RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

[Just getting back on email this morning after IIW and ITU IDM meetings.]

As Gabe points out, Syntax 2.0 went to Committee Specification level 18
months ago. This plan would be to take XRI Resolution 2.0 to at least
Committee Draft level ASAP.

My recommendation would be to not do anything about the Dictionary spec yet,
and call the XRI 2.0 suite "done" with Syntax and Resolution.

Then the focus would move to the XRI 3.0 suite. This would include XRI
Syntax 3.0, XRI Resolution 3.0, and XRI Dictionary 3.0. Putting on my XDI TC
co-chair hat, I'd also like to see the XDI 1.0 spec come out at the same
time (there's no dependency of the XRI specs on the XDI specs, but there is
a complete dependency in the opposite direction.)

Let's plan to discuss all this on next week's TC telecon. Meanwhile, after
good feedback at IIW, I'll get the final sections of XRI Resolution 2.0
Working Draft 11 done and posted so that will be the other main focus of
next week's call.

=Drummond 


-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:19 PM
To: william.tan@neustar.biz; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
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
> 
> 
>