[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT Thursday 2009-11-19
I will not be a suitable editor for a spec focused only on trust. Anyone wants to take this on? I would like to see a first draft by end of Dec. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bradley [mailto:jbradley@mac.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:36 PM > To: Breno de Medeiros > Cc: Will Norris; XRI TC > Subject: Re: [xri] Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT Thursday 2009-11-19 > > Yes that was more or less what we started to discuss. > > We should start work on the trust profile for host meta. > > John B. > On 2009-11-19, at 8:30 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > > > Apologies for missing this meeting. I had intended to come but the > > meeting mysteriously dropped from my calendar, so I didn't get > > reminded in time. > > > > I had an interest in talking about trust framework for host-meta. > > Having heard the above arguments summarized, I think it might be > > appropriate for XRI TC to define one that the host-meta spec may > > allude to. > > > > Host-meta security is an excellent test-case for defining a trust > > profile. Since it is information about a host, it matches the purposes > > that X.509/CA-based PKI was designed to solve. We should be able to > > create a trust profile for 'hosts' that avoid the more open-ended > > questions about how to provide trust for resources, at the same time > > avoiding questions about CA- versus self-signed certificates, > > alternative trust frameworks to PKI, etc. Not that I don't find such > > issues interesting, only that we have enough heavy-lifting in creating > > a trust profile even with a playbook to follow. > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote: > >> Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XRI TC at: > >> > >> > >> Date: Thursday, 19 November 2009 USA > >> Time: 2:00PM - 3:00PM Pacific Time (21:00-22:00 UTC) > >> > >> ATTENDING > >> > >> Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> John Bradley > >> Will Norris > >> Nika Jones > >> George Fletcher > >> Scott Cantor > >> RL "Bob" Morgan > >> > >> > >> 1) DISCUSS REVISIONS TO XRD COMMITTEE DRAFT 01 REVISION 01 > >> > >> Eran was okay with Will making the changes proposed to the list: > >> > >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200911/msg00055.html > >> > >> There was discussion as to whether clarification relating to the optionality > of the <Subject> element should be a separate paragraph at the beginning, > or a simple line in the <Subject> section. Will noted that it seems that only a > minority of people continue to be hung-up on <Subject> after it is explained > to them, so the simple one-line addition to the <Subject> section should be > sufficient. > >> > >> Eran is currently waiting on a draft with this new schema to be published > so that he can reference it from a new Host Meta draft. Will is going to make > the changes a tag WD10 this week. > >> > >> 2) TRUST PROFILES > >> > >> Eran noted that he is also getting a bit of pressure to provide a trust > profile for use with Host Meta. If need be, he plans to simply include a basic > profile as part of the Host Meta spec itself. He has no problem doing the > editorial work, but asked for some assistance with outlining the basic flow. > >> > >> It was discussed whether it made sense to have a separate trust profile > for Host Meta, or if the ones written for generic signed XRD documents could > be written in such a way as to cover the Host Meta use case as well. > Additionally, there was a question of where that work should be done... > should it be a product of the TC, or do we leave it to be defined elsewhere? > >> > >> Scott noted that if the trust profile was specific to a particular use of XRD, > then it should probably come from whatever body it is that is defining that > use-case. However, if it is relatively generic and useful across different uses > of XRD, it makes sense to have it come from the TC. > >> > >> John noted that it would very likely be the same libraries that are > validating Host Meta documents as are validating generic XRD documents, so > have consistency between them would be a good thing. > >> > >> > >> 3) PROPERTY ELEMENT > >> > >> George wondered whether we were leaving things a little too open with > the generic key-value <Property> element. Is it going to become a catch-all > for people shoving all sorts of data into an XRD that perhaps shouldn't be, > making the element so generic that it becomes less useful. Will shared the > concern, but the discussion didn't go much further than that. > >> > >> > >> 4) XRD COMMENTS > >> > >> Scott recommended that we get a head start on putting together the > official response to feedback received during the public review. Getting this > taken care of now will help expedite getting to the next TC vote when the > review closes. > >> > >> > >> 5) NEXT CALL > >> > >> Next week is Thanksgiving in the US, so the next scheduled call will be > December 3rd, 2009. > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > >> https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > --Breno > > > > +1 (650) 214-1007 desk > > +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) > > MTV-41-3 : 383-A > > PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]