Version identifier for XRD spec

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

Mary,

From today's XRI TC call I had an action item to send you and the TC list an
email asking about OASIS spec naming guidelines. Based on the helpful info
about spec packaging you gave us two weeks ago, the TC is currently planning
two new specs, both of which we intend to take to OASIS Standard level: XRI
3.0 and XRD xxx (xxx = version identifier TBD).

XRI 3.0 will consist of four parts (1: Syntax, 2: Resolution, 3: http: and
https: Bindings, and 4: info: Binding). XRD will probably be a single spec,
though it might be two parts.

Now, the question is about versioning on the XRD spec. This is a new spec
that represents splitting off a significant portion of the content of the
XRI Resolution 2.0 spec into a new spec that defines a generic metadata
discovery format and protocol which the new XRI 3.0 Part 2: Resolution spec
will then profile (as will other specs, e.g. SAML, OpenID, OAuth, etc. who
want to use interoperable discovery).

Our first question is: does an OASIS spec need to use a numeric version
identifier? In researching this tonight, I believe the answer is at:

	
http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#ver
sion

...which states:

*******************
A specification Version is represented textually by a numeric string
composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any of the
following lexical models provided below (as examples), as may be relevant to
the TC's work activity and preference for major/minor version notation.
Formally, using parenthesis to indicate optionality and "#" to represent a
digit, the allowable pattern is: #(#).#(#)(.#(#)). Use of any other pattern
for version number must be negotiated with the TC Administration.

Examples:

1.0      #.#
1.01     #.##
1.2.1    #.#.#
10.1     ##.#
********************

If so, that answers the question, and we just need to decide what version
number to give it (in short: one rationale is to call it 1.0 because it is a
new spec; another is to call it 3.0 because it derives from two generations
of XRDS before it -- but that's our issue to figure out).

However, if we do have any flexibility, we want to at least ask you about
using a year/date identifier instead of a version number.

Thanks in advance. (BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a call in early December
between you and the editors of these new specs to a general Q&A about all
things involved with the mechanics of an OASIS spec. Sound like a good
idea?)

=Drummond