[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
Indeed, I enjoyed reading it as "An Introduction to XDI."
This was very readable. In this respect, I would love to have
some UML diagrams. Do you think Activity diagram is
more suited for the resolution process, Gabe?
I thought, since there are distinct objects and message
passing among them involbed in the resolution,
sequence diagram would be particularly useful.
Now, as a spec., I have one concern. Perhaps I am
traumatized by the experience of XNS spec, but
this "size factor" is rather important as well.
Think of the process that a new reader will do when
first exposed to any kind of document.
1. Assess the volume: If too big, abort.
2. Look at the Contents/Index. If too hard, abort.
3. Start reading, and after a couple of pages, if
he starts feeling weary, abort.
etc.
So called "Meta Recognition" is very important for
human being's learning process, and what I fear
is that those size factor would create a negative
Meta Recognition. If it cannot be broken down to
a smaller documents, then it would probably be
nice to have "how to read" at the very beginning.
Nat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:36 AM
> To: Drummond Reed; Sakimura, Nat; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
>
> I tend to agree with both of you actually.
>
> It certainly is not as terse as many protocol specifications.
> And that makes me feel a little uneasy, but I'm not sure
> there's a better way at this point.
>
> The resolution document has the dual task of introducing the
> resolution concepts AND specifying the nitty gritty details.
> I think there are precedents for this in SOAP, for example.
>
> As for UML diagrams - we could certainly add something like
> an activity diagram. That would make it a bit longer though ;-)
>
> -Gabe
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:15 PM
> > To: 'Sakimura, Nat'; Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
> >
> > Nat,
> >
> > Thanks so much, this is very helpful. I too thought that the
> > Resolution spec was quite a bit bigger that Syntax and Metadata.
> > However it is the area in which we are plowing the most new
> ground (in
> > Syntax, we are building heavily on URI/IRI, and Metadata builds
> > heavily on Syntax and two other supporting specs).
> >
> > I also think that the examples help considerably in explaining the
> > base spec. After reviewing it all in detail, I'm not as
> sure that it
> > could be "unpacked" and still be as readable. Ironically, I suspect
> > the next version will be able to be much shorter because by
> then the
> > whole territory will be "better understood" (just as our 2.0 Syntax
> > spec is now shorter than 1.0).
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my .02. Gabe, what do you think?
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:48 PM
> > To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
> >
> > Haven't finished reading it, but just a couple of points:
> May overlap
> > with other's comment since I have not checked them yet, but...
> >
> > Since line number seem to depends on the paper size, I am not using
> > it.
> > Instead I try to
> > refer by section number etc. (We really should be using Wiki for
> > this...
> > or text base document
> > with line breaks so that we can use diff and patch.)
> >
> > Table 4: The header shows xri://@:a:b -> xri://@!a!b , I guess.
> >
> > Section 2.3
> > "HTTP URL" -> "HTTP URI", I guess
> >
> > Section 2.3 Exabit of HTTPresponse:
> > At XRIDescriptors/XRIDescriptor/Synonyms/External:
> > It states xri://@example2/path
> > At a glance, it seems it contradicts to the statement about local
> > access in Section 2.2.8. If this is right, some
> explanation is in
> > order.
> >
> > Section 2.4.2 Frist line.
> > ... section 4.3 or [RFC2483] -> ection 4.3 of [RFC2483]
> >
> > [GENERAL]
> > I am a fresh-eye for this thing as I have not been involed in the
> > process. (I regret.) However, this means I am uniquely
> positioned to
> > experience what the other people would feel when first
> exposed to this
> > document.
> >
> > Here are bullet points: (Sorry, I have no time now. I would expand
> > them later. )
> >
> > - BULKY
> > - Looks more like a white paper than a spec.
> > - Useful to have UML Sequence Diagram for the description of the
> > resolution process.
> > - One could condense the normative spec to perhaps only 10 pages.
> > Better separate the bulky explanation (I found it
> extremely useful,
> > though)
> > and the main spec.
> > - Figure 2 hard to understand
> >
> > Well, time up... to be continued...
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 7:46 AM
> > > To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
> > >
> > > Gabe,
> > >
> > > Some of my comments overlap with Peter's, plus I have
> boatloads of
> > > regular text editing comments (per the partially review
> draft I sent
> > > you this morning). I am 1/2 way through Trusted Res. and
> will send
> > > you my completed draft as soon as I am finished with it
> (current ETA
> > > ~6pm tonight).
> > >
> > > =Drummond
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:27 PM
> > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [xri] Comments on draft-resolution-04
> > >
> > > page 6 : figure 1 it might be more clear to also show what gets
> > > returns in this diagram (assuming space allows)
> > >
> > > page 29 line 224: it is also possible to have @a*b*c be both an
> > > authority (over *d) and a local access point is it not?
> if so, then
> > > i think this should be noted (actually, i think it is the common
> > > case)
> > >
> > > line 286 & 289: "MUST no longer be relied upon" i think should be
> > > phrased "MUST NOT be relied upon" (preferring the
> normative negative
> > > form)
> > >
> > > line 692: references "!" as a GCS Char for annotations,
> which it is
> > > no longer
> > >
> > > Table 4 line 698: ":" in col heading should be "!"
> > >
> > > line 1025: for 'reasonable' caching, whatever that means, it is
> > > unlikely that authorities can/should be aware of
> down-stream cache
> > > duration directives, thus i think the advice concerning the cache
> > > relative to the resolution chain should be dropped, and we should
> > > simply point out that cache times may vary, and the
> resolver should
> > > simply adhere to the 'shortest-lived' cache for the resolution
> > > sequence.
> > >
> > > section 2.7 general: nothing is said about caching
> computations for
> > > lookahead resolution... that is, the XRIDescriptors/XRIDescriptor
> > > elements each may contain different caching. I think some
> > > explanatory text such as "When look-ahed or proxied resolution is
> > > used, the resolving client MUST expire the entire XRID when the
> > > first expriration of a node in the resolution chain
> described in the
> > > XRID is
> > reached."
> > > In addition, i think some advice on how lookahead and proxies
> > > compute the value for the HTTP Expires header for their response
> > > back to the client, based on the cummulative expirations set buy
> > > both the HTTP headers and Expires elements in the chain of
> > > resolution steps they perform on behalf of the client.
> > >
> > > line 1075: might i suggest that since there may be other trusted
> > > resolution proposals in the future, that we enrich the
> mediatype for
> > > the resolution request (Accept header) to
> > > xdrd-t-saml+xml or something.
> > >
> > > line 1114: rather than explaining that =example and example.org
> > > similarities are coincidental, why don;'t we just make them
> > > different strings ;-)
> > >
> > > line 1483: fix reference to resolution section (2)
> > >
> > > line 1606: +1 on gabes note on requiring KeyInfo.
> > >
> > > line 1610: I think AUthorityID is a MUST, since it is required
> > > within the processing instructions t the client, is it not?
> > >
> > > seciton 3 general: we may want to express versioning for
> trusted res
> > > (or res in general), so that we can better acommodate backwards
> > > compat, should XRIRes ever need revisions (eg:
> > > application/xrid-t:1-saml:2.0+xml or
> > > $res*trusted/XRITrusted/($v*1)). prehaps more broadly, do
> we want to
> > > express a version in protocols as a general rule.
> > > this is partially covered in 4.2.3, but i think it needs more
> > > (perhaps _more_ is in the metadata spec, which i have not
> > read yet ;-)
> > >
> > > Section 5 Sec concerns forthcomming shortly (tomorrow mid-day)
> > >
> > > --- peterd
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: xri-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: xri-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: xri-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> >
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]