RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal

["Chasen, Les" <les.chasen@neustar.biz>]

Sounds like a good plan.

contact: =les
sip: =les/(+phone)
chat: =les/skype/chat
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:51 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] XRI Resolution 2.0 Comittee Spec Proposal
> 
> [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
> >
> >
> >
>