The list is not used often – primarily during
cycles of the XDI.org Global Services Specifications (gss.xdi.org), which have
been stable for a year now. They will need an update after we publish XRI
Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 02, so there will be some traffic then.
Thanks for pointing out that the archives
aren’t working – I’ll check on that.
=Drummond
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Markus Sabadello
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007
10:50 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: Chasen, Les;
Subject: Re: [xri] CID changes in
wd11
Thank you for the link, I didn't know this list existed. Is it ever used? The
list archive seems to be broken.
Markus
On 8/14/07, Drummond
Reed <>
wrote:
Markus,
I agree that we need to keep the rules for the XRI specs
(purely technical) separate from the policy of any XRI provider such as the
XDI.org GRS (Global Registry Service).
However see the email I just sent for an example of where the
CanonicalID value for a GRS-registered i-name might in fact change (from an
https URI to an i-number). I admit that this use case is probably a very edge
case, and would likely be very rare.
In any case, GRS policy is discussed in another forum – the
XDI.org GSS (Global Services Specifications) mailing list at http://www.xdi.org/mailing-list-gss-comment.html.
=Drummond
From:
[mailto:
] On Behalf Of Markus
Sabadello
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:34
PM
To: Chasen, Les
Cc:
Subject: Re: [xri] CID changes in
wd11
Hey Les,
You all know the GRS 1000 times better than me, but here's an idea..
Maybe it would make sense to differentiate between XRI in general and i-names /
i-numbers in particular. We could say that
1) for XRI in general, CanonicalIDs are optional and can be hierarchical or
non-hierarchical, persistent or non-persistent, editable, whatever the user
wants...
whereas
2) for i-names, CanonicalIDs (i-numbers) are required and will not change once
the i-name has been registered.
Just a thought..
Markus
On
8/13/07, Chasen, Les <>
wrote:
Hi
all –
After
reviewing the latest wd11 I have one major concern. This version allows a
CID to be changed after it is already set. I believe that this is a
big mistake. The CID is the persistent identifier for the queried
XRD. We need to ensure that once an XRD has a CID that that CID
identifies that XRD forever.
I
have always thought of the CID as a primary key to the global database we have
created with XRI resolution. Client applications have been and are being
written that depend on the value of this primary key for the mapping of an
identity described by an XRDS to their internal account structure. If we
allow this primary key to be changed we have caused a major data integrity
problem.
I
propose that the definition of CID not only revert back to the WD10 definition
but we also more strongly codify that a CID once set should never be
changed.
Thanks
Les
contact: =les
voice : =les/(+phone)
chat: =les/skype/chat
pibb me
=les/+pibb
