Re: [xri] RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the

Thanks for answering Drummond. I do seem to be the lone voice advocating a simpler XRI layer that XDI addressing builds on, so the XDI addressing only approach is clearly the TC consensus.

That saddens me a bit because it means XRIs cannot be used independently of XDI addressing, and I think there is a lot of potential there.

My opinion is also 'If it didn't ship, it might as well not exist.', which means that for pragmatic purposes there is no option of using XRI 3.0 if it is not at least a CD, at least without significant risk of adoption for anything that builds on the last WD of XRI 3.0. Some may be willing to go with that risk, I've heard many express that they will not base something on anything that not at least a CD.

I don't understand why the last WD cannot be delivered as, at the least, a CD, unless it is not of sufficient quality to submit for wider review (I don't think this is the case), even if XDI addressing includes changes to XRI syntax rather than just layering on top of it, or doesn't mention XRI syntax at all (that would seem strange to me). I am pushing for a CD because that last WD is the culmination of years of work by quite a few people and it seems a waste to just leave it as a WD. Submitting the last XRI WD as a CD could be the last act of the XRI TC, or an act of the XDI TC.

I also want to point out that I think the time to engage the W3C might not be prior to any vote for ratification, which to me means once final draft is done but before the submission for vote, but now, as the rough drafts of the specs are brought together. In other words work with them now in developing what we have into spec form rather than ask them for comment at the end. In fact I'd love to see publication of a draft of the current XDI Addressing ABNF to the wider user community in a request for technical feedback (not just from W3C, but the IdentityCommons folks, and general Identity community, i.e. Kaliya's mailing list), before we go to CD with XDI Addressing.

Kind regards,

Bill Barnhill

Booz Allen Hamilton - Belcamp,MD

barnhill_william@bah.com

Cell: 1-443-924-0824

From: drummond@respectnetwork.net [drummond@respectnetwork.net] on behalf of Drummond Reed [drummond.reed@xdi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:36 PM
To: Barnhill, William [USA]
Cc: Joseph Boyle; Will Norris; Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign
Subject: Re: [xri] RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:

My understanding of closing the XRI TC and folding the work into the XDI TC was that the XRI 3.0 spec would be released by the XDI TC. Not trying to change my vote - lack of activity pretty much required XRI TC to close one way or another.

Agreed.

However, it sounds like what is currently being discussed in the XDI TC now is the completely rework of XRIs to match the new XDI syntax. In other words it sounds like the plan is that the identifier syntax for XDI will not be a simple layer based on straight XRI 3.0 syntax (as described by the working draft) with the XDI layer sitting on top of that, but just an XDI layer.

It's not even an XDI "layer". It's just XDI addressing syntax, which is based directly on the XDI graph model structure.

I think that is not a good thing and that the XRI 3.0 Working Draft should be submitted for ratification.

See below.

So I have the following questions:
(1) What is the disposition of the XRI 3.0 Working Draft?

The proposal is simply to close the XRI TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC, so any ongoing work on XRI would happen there. However apart from yourself I don't believe there is anyone else who is interested in pursuing XRI 3.0 Working Draft at the XDI TC. We would simply be repurposing the XRI work within XDI addressing.

(2) Does the XRI 3.0 go away to get replaced by XDI Resource Identifiers 1.0?

It's not that it "goes away" -- the XRI 3.0 Working Draft would remain as a resource at OASIS (in fact my understanding is that it would not even move, i.e., everything the XRI TC produced remains archived).

And it won't get directly "replaced" by any one XDI spec. Rather XDI Core 1.0 will define the ABNF for XDI addressing.

(3) Does it get published as a CD submitted for ratification with section 3.1.1 as is?

No. No further work is planned on it.

(4) Will the final XRI syntax spec that authors can base things on without the XDI additions be 2.0?

See above.

(5) Have we addressed in XRI 3.0 the issues raised by the W3C?

To my knowledge, yes. And those same principles are being followed by XDI 1.0, i.e., all XDI addresses will, after escaping, be valid relative URIs.

(6) If the answer to (5) is yes, do we have assurances the W3C will not lobby to block its ratification?

I don't know. As you know, XDI is an entirely different animal than XRI, so IMHO all the issues that W3C had with XRI are past history now. With XDI we are in new territory, but especially in light of what happened in the past, I can assure you we will work to build every bridge we can with the W3C prior to any vote for ratification.

Best,

=Drummond

From: Barnhill, William [USA]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:40 PM
To: Joseph Boyle; Will Norris

Cc: Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; Drummond Reed; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign

Subject: RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

+1

Kind regards,

Bill Barnhill

Booz Allen Hamilton - Belcamp,MD

barnhill_william@bah.com

Cell: 1-443-924-0824

From: xri@lists.oasis-open.org [xri@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Joseph Boyle [planetwork@josephboyle.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Will Norris
Cc: Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; Drummond Reed; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign
Subject: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

+1

On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Will Norris <willnorris@google.com> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Chasen, Les <les.chasen@neustar.biz> wrote:

+1

On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:05 AM, "Markus Sabadello" <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:

I think this makes sense, let's proceed as proposed.

Markus

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:

XRI TC Members,

After approximately two years of inactivity, during which time virtually all the work on XRI has migrated to the OASIS XDI Technical Committee, our TC Administrator Chet Ensign contacted Peter and I to ask if it is time to formally close the XRI TC.

I had a call with Chet last Thursday to discuss it. Chet said that if the only continuing work on what were the XRI specifications is now going on at the XDI TC, and if there is no other work that the XRI TC plans to continue (such as the work on XRD), then he recommends that the TC hold an electronic ballot to close the TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC.

I agreed with him, and volunteered to start the process. On last Friday's XDI TC telecon, I held a discussion with the XDI TC members, and they unanimously agreed they would accept the XRI work if it was contributed to the XDI TC.

So the next step is to see if there is rough consensus among the XRI TC members to close the TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC.

Please reply to this email with your thoughts -- in particular if you do NOT support closing the TC and contributing the work to the XDI TC. (Silence will be taken as assent.)

If there is rough consensus, Chet will then instruct us with the ballot language we will need for a formal vote.

Thanks,

=Drummond

xri message