[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Agenda: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT Thursday 2009-07-09
I will not be able to attend. Here is my feedback for the meeting. > 2) XRD 1.0 - LINK PROCESSING RULES > > We need to complete the decision about the "link priority order model" vs. > the "flat model". See this thread: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200907/msg00063.html I feel we are overstepping the scope of XRD by making it an extension of LRDD. If XRD gives additional processing instructions with regard to describedby links, it creates confusion and muddles the clear semantic meaning we have. LRDD does not recognize describedby links present in an XRD file as a valid location for linking to a resource description (in terms of where LRDD looks for links). While the semantics of such a link in XRD are clear and valid, the more I think about it, the less appropriate it feels from a protocol perspective. I just don't like the idea of treating some rel types differently than others. The problem with Drummond's proposal is that I am not sure how a parser can actually apply it when dealing with imperfect matches. If an XRD has 10 links and a parser is looking for a link with more than just a single rel type match, what should it do if it finds some matches but none is perfect and at the same time there is a higher priority link to another XRD? I would argue that a parser should first go through the entire XRD looking for a match (of the desired quality), ignoring any other relation types, including describedby. If a suitable match wasn't found, *then* the parser looks for describedby links to other XRDs and process those in priority order. I don't think it is appropriate to cross priorities across different relation types. BUT, I still don't like this entire approach of using a specific rel and media type to mean something with such significant impact on the parsing rules, especially with potential conflicts with LRDD and other links. It is just asking for problems. Linking to another XRD can have two meaning: addition or replacement. Addition is enough because it can simulate replacement by having nothing but a single link in the XRD. That is good enough. What I suggest we do is define a new relation type that means 'XRD include' and then we can remove any ambiguity about the semantic meaning of such links. But the order in which such links are processed should still be as I described above. In other words, my proposal is: 1. Look for a link matching your requirements, if found, end. 2. If no link sufficiently matches your requirements, look for "XRD includes". Process them in priority order from step 1. > 3) OTHER XRD 1.0 ISSUES > > Will and Eran to cover any other outstanding issues (such as the question of > whether trust should be split into a separate spec?) Since Will indicated he made great progress, I don't think we need to split it at this point. I agree that the signature element should be moved to the end. We should have one XRD example before the schema description that shows all the elements in action with minimal explanation, just as an easy reference when reading the schema details. We should have a couple full examples in an appendix. I will work on a template example using a made up rel type and vocabulary. > 4) LRDD - SUBJECT OF A HOST-META XRD > > Eran: what's the status of this issue? > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200907/msg00007.html I think we are down to two options: 1. Define something like a <SubjectSet> element. 2. Define a LRDD extension to XRD that will define a <Host> element and a simple rule how to apply the normal XRD trust model to it. #1 means more work for XRD and some delay in getting this into the schema. But if we get it right, it will be a useful facility for describing simple resource sets. #2 means a bit more work for parsers that implement LRDD to support an extension element, but no changes to XRD are needed, and the solution only addresses the single use case we have without overreaching. I like one of these better but will wait to hear from others before I bias the group... > 5) OTHER LINK HEADER/HOST META/LRDD STATUS/ISSUES > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery Mark finished the new site-meta draft, changing focus to /.well-known/. Should be posted before the IETF I-D cutoff next week. Mark also hopes to push a final Link draft before the cutoff. A new discovery draft will be published right after the cutoff, assuming there is an XRD draft to reference. EHL
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]