[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] CanonicalID verification text for section 11.
Gabe, Canonical ID verification only takes place
for canonical identifier paths.
These are represented in the XRD as the set of highest priority CanonicalIDs. Under a merge, the “old” and
the “new” Canonical IDs could not both be canonical identifier
paths, because canonical identifier paths MUST be proper synonym paths. This is explained in section 11.2.7.3.
In English: the old canonical identifier path cannot
represent an absolute identity for the merged authority. Therefore the old canonical identifier path
must be relegated to a lower-priority Canonical ID post merge. It is not a canonical
identifier path for the new authority, and it is not verified under CanonicalID
verification. Bet its all clear now. J ~ Steve From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] But in the case of authority merge, you
would say, the canonical id’s from the two authorities should be of the
same priority then?
-Gabe From: Steven Churchill
[mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] Gabe, The text intends to say this: only the highest
priority CanonicalIDs are validated under Canonical ID verification. (Note that
there may be more than one with the same highest priority, and if so, they are
all validated.) There may be other lower-priority Canonical
IDs as well, but these are not validated under Canonical ID verification. These
would be present, for example, in the case of an authority merge. ~ Steve From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] Question: 1) In reading the first page, it looks like there is only one
canonical ID ever legally allowed in an XRD (the one with the highest priority)
– I thought the point was that canonical ID verification would result in
a legal CanonicalID and depending on how you got to the XRD, a specific
CanonicalID would be “verified” or not, depending on the resolution
path to get to the XRD. This is unrelated to “priority” attribute.
Are you saying this is NOT the case? From: Steven Churchill
[mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] Drummond, Attached are my changes for section 11. I still owe the changes for Appendix E. (These are small.) ~ Steve |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]