[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal
Laurie, No, Syntax 2.0 was fully baked 18 months ago. We only need the template for future specs, like XRI Resolution 2.0. =Drummond -----Original Message----- From: Laurie Rae [mailto:laurie.rae@cordance.net] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:09 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal Will we still need to update the Syntax 2.0 spec to the new OASIS template? I am assuming that this is the case, but will email Mary McRae to confirm. Laurie Drummond Reed wrote: > [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 >> >> >> >> > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]