Open Challenge to webfinger and XRD

[Santosh Rajan]

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums. These guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give. Maybe i am a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But let them prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to them, "THE IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD, don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

[David Recordon-3]

Hey Santosh,

I'm really confused by your email and how it's productive to either the OpenID or Webfinger communities.  I am very supportive of the Webfinger work which is underway.

It sounds to me like you should go and engage the XRI TC within OASIS who is working on developing XRD: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri.

--David

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Repost of my post to OpemiD Forum

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".
Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But let
them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".
Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told so
much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to hear
from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if this
post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree that
"I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Hey David,
So what where you suggesting?
1) That I should not have posted this on the OpenID Forum? Like it or not the NO (1) use case for Webfinger/XRD is OpenID!
2) I should follow the link which you give, for which no normal sane human being will know what to do with? Can you tell me what I should have done with the link you gave me?

Thanks
Santosh

David Recordon-3 wrote:

Hey Santosh,I'm really confused by your email and how it's productive to
either the OpenID or Webfinger communities.  I am very supportive of the
Webfinger work which is underway.

It sounds to me like you should go and engage the XRI TC within OASIS who is
working on developing XRD:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri.


--David

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Santosh Rajan <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Repost of my post to OpemiD Forum
>
> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
> These
> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
> DOWN
> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
> Maybe i am
> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But let
> them
> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
> them, "THE
> IDENTITY OSCAR".
> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told so
> much.
> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to hear
> from
> me.
> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if this
> post
> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
> my
> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
> don't
> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree that
> "I am
> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
> Idiots!!!!
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[David Recordon-3]

No, #3.  Adopt a civil tone when you engage on these mailing lists.

--David

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hey David,
So what where you suggesting?
1) That I should not have posted this on the OpenID Forum? Like it or not
the NO (1) use case for Webfinger/XRD is OpenID!
2) I should follow the link which you give, for which no normal sane human
being will know what to do with? Can you tell me what I should have done
with the link you gave me?

Thanks
Santosh

David Recordon-3 wrote:
>
> Hey Santosh,I'm really confused by your email and how it's productive to
> either the OpenID or Webfinger communities.  I am very supportive of the
> Webfinger work which is underway.
>
> It sounds to me like you should go and engage the XRI TC within OASIS who
> is
> working on developing XRD:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri.
>
>
> --David
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Repost of my post to OpemiD Forum
>>
>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
>> These
>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>> DOWN
>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>> Maybe i am
>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But let
>> them
>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>> them, "THE
>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told so
>> much.
>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to hear
>> from
>> me.
>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if this
>> post
>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
>> my
>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>> don't
>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree that
>> "I am
>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>> Idiots!!!!
>>
>

> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
>

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25964784.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1  
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options  
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't  
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone  
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for  
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join  
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

>
> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.  
> These
> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING  
> DOWN
> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>
> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.  
> Maybe i am
> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But  
> let them
> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to  
> them, "THE
> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>
>
>
> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told  
> so much.
> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to  
> hear from
> me.
> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if  
> this post
> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with  
> my
> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,  
> don't
> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree  
> that "I am
> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
> Idiots!!!!
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Thank you for your advice. I think what I have argued so far has been pretty scientific. If you find a lack of civility in my arguments so far. My apologies. Can you please point out where exactly I lacked in civility, or can you rewrite what I have written in a civil manner (as you suggest) so that I can learn?
Thank You
Santosh

David Recordon-3 wrote:

No, #3.  Adopt a civil tone when you engage on these mailing lists.
--David

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Santosh Rajan <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hey David,
> So what where you suggesting?
> 1) That I should not have posted this on the OpenID Forum? Like it or not
> the NO (1) use case for Webfinger/XRD is OpenID!
> 2) I should follow the link which you give, for which no normal sane human
> being will know what to do with? Can you tell me what I should have done
> with the link you gave me?
>
> Thanks
> Santosh
>
>
>
> David Recordon-3 wrote:
> >
> > Hey Santosh,I'm really confused by your email and how it's productive to
> > either the OpenID or Webfinger communities.  I am very supportive of the
> > Webfinger work which is underway.
> >
> > It sounds to me like you should go and engage the XRI TC within OASIS who
> > is
> > working on developing XRD:
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xri.
> >
> >
> > --David
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Santosh Rajan <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Repost of my post to OpemiD Forum
> >>
> >> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
> >> These
> >> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
> >> DOWN
> >> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
> >> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
> >> Maybe i am
> >> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But let
> >> them
> >> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
> >> them, "THE
> >> IDENTITY OSCAR".
> >> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told so
> >> much.
> >> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to hear
> >> from
> >> me.
> >> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if this
> >> post
> >> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
> >> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
> >> my
> >> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
> >> don't
> >> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
> >> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
> >> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
> >> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree that
> >> "I am
> >> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
> >> Idiots!!!!
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
> >
> >
>
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25964784.html
> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1  
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1  
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options  
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't  
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone  
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for  
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join  
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

>
> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.  
> These
> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING  
> DOWN
> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>
> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.  
> Maybe i am
> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But  
> let them
> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to  
> them, "THE
> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>
>
>
> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told  
> so much.
> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to  
> hear from
> me.
> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if  
> this post
> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with  
> my
> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,  
> don't
> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree  
> that "I am
> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
> Idiots!!!!
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general


 
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Breno de Medeiros]

The subject of an XRD is implicitly the URI of the resource that was
discovered and resulted in this XRD being returned as its metadata. So
in general Subject is not needed.

When the same metadata applies to multiple URIs then one can be the
Subject and others can be Aliases.

Another use for Subject is for the XRD signature. A sound trust model
needs to validate the binding of subject and metadata in the
signature, so Subject should always be present in signed documents,
unless the application defines other means to bind the metadata and
resource in a verifiable way.


--
--Breno

[phone] desk
[phone] (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

What do you mean "In general Subject is not needed"? If there is no <Subject> how are you going to verify what you got is indeed what you were looking for?

Breno de Medeiros wrote:

The subject of an XRD is implicitly the URI of the resource that was
discovered and resulted in this XRD being returned as its metadata. So
in general Subject is not needed.

When the same metadata applies to multiple URIs then one can be the
Subject and others can be Aliases.

Another use for Subject is for the XRD signature. A sound trust model
needs to validate the binding of subject and metadata in the
signature, so Subject should always be present in signed documents,
unless the application defines other means to bind the metadata and
resource in a verifiable way.


--
--Breno

[phone] desk
[phone] (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[e-mail]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

>
> Hi John,
> The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th  
> Oct here
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html
>
> It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is  
> not part
> of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still  
> doesnt change
> my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the  
> effect is
> still the same for me.
>
> You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
> calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what  
> you have
> said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and  
> ignore the
> rest.
>
> "The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
> in an XRD."
>
> That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0"  
> <Subject>
> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?
>
>
>
> John Bradley-9 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Santosh,
>>
>> I am having a hard time following your point.
>>
>> This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>
>> There is no <Host>  element in the spec.
>>
>> The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
>> in an XRD.
>>
>> HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.
>>
>> I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract  
>> Subject.
>>
>> ie one that is about the host and not the URI.
>>
>> This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.
>>
>> Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
>> information resources with URI.
>>
>> We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some  
>> options
>> on how they might do that.
>>
>> Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I  
>> don't
>> know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide  
>> someone
>> will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.
>>
>> There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
>> you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
>> the TC.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
>>> These
>>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>>> DOWN
>>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>>>
>>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>>> Maybe i am
>>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
>>> let them
>>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>>> them, "THE
>>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
>>> so much.
>>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
>>> hear from
>>> me.
>>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
>>> this post
>>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
>>> my
>>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>>> don't
>>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
>>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
>>> that "I am
>>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>>> Idiots!!!!
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Santosh Rajan
>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html
> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Dirk Balfanz]

XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is described by this XRD.

So, 

<Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

<Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current thinking for host-meta is to say something like 

<Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com

where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html and responses.

Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it). using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.

Cheers,

Dirk.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

The XRD 1.0 spec defines the valid XML for a XRD document.

There is no <Host> element.

A XRD may contain 0 or 1 <Subject> elements,  the value MUST be an absolute URI.

There are some use cases where people wanted to use XRD with an implicit subject rather than an explicit one, so it is permitted by the XSD.

The signed XRD trust model requires a <Subject> element.

It is posible that the ietf group working on host meta could define a extension element at the top level and not include a <Subject> ,  I cant speak for them.

I don't personally think that is a good idea.

People will be able to construct multiple trust models from XRD documents.  LRDD uses XRD but is not part of XRD.

I understand there desire to have a Subject that is about the DNS host rather then the URI.

I have scars from similar discussions with the W3C in the past.  

There are a number of ways they can address the problem.  I don't think they liked my suggestions. 

It is there spec.  

I don't know that it is a forgone conclusion that openID will adopted LRDD, or WebFinger  .

I am certain that Eran and others will give due consideration to your input.

Regards

John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 7:00 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is described by this XRD.

So, 

<Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

<Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current thinking for host-meta is to say something like 

<Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com

where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html and responses.

Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it). using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.

Cheers,

Dirk.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh



_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

Let me give an example.

thread-safe.net is my openID so my personal XRD describing my relationship to linked resources such as an openID service provider is described there.

I may also have other services on my site that need to have there XRD retrieved via the host-meta XRD.

I don't want my personal XRD to have the link templates for resolving XRD on the site.

I need something else to use for the subject of the host-meta XRD.

Having two XRD with the same subject doesn't seem like a good idea.

LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)

You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least in the openID case that would not work for many people.

Regards

John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is described by this XRD.

So, 

<Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

<Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current thinking for host-meta is to say something like 

<Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com

where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html and responses.

Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it). using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.

Cheers,

Dirk.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[Santosh Rajan]

Now this is exactly the point I am making, that the personal XRD and host meta are the same in the case a domain name also describes a personal resource. In the case of "thread-safe.net" your personal XRD and the host meta are the same. There is no contradiction here. It is only the context in which the resource is looked for that makes a difference.

So if you typed in "thread-safe.net" as your OpenID, the application will simply treat the host meta as your personal XRD. On the other hand if you typed in john@... or thread-safe.net/john, the application will treat the XRD as host meta and look for a URITemplate with Rel="describedby" + MediaType="application/xrd_xml".

The Rel values for your Personal Links and "general" resource Links will not be that same. There will be no overlap or contradictions here. This way we keep the whole concept clean and simple.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:36 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Let me give an example.

thread-safe.net is my openID so my personal XRD describing my relationship to linked resources such as an openID service provider is described there.

I may also have other services on my site that need to have there XRD retrieved via the host-meta XRD.

I don't want my personal XRD to have the link templates for resolving XRD on the site.

I need something else to use for the subject of the host-meta XRD.

Having two XRD with the same subject doesn't seem like a good idea.

LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)

You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least in the openID case that would not work for many people.

Regards

John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is described by this XRD.

So, 

<Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

<Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current thinking for host-meta is to say something like 

<Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com

where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html and responses.

Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it). using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.

Cheers,

Dirk.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Kemp-5]

Hello,

On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:

[...]

>
> LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the  
> DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)

As I understand it, XRD describes the concept of a subject for the XRD  
document containing that subject identifier, and says that subjects  
are identified by URIs.

As an identifier, a URI may be used to identify anything you want.

In some cases (maybe a lot of them ;) the URI-as-identifier is also a  
URI-as-location-of-a-document. It would be easy for XRD to say that  
the subject URI MUST mean the URI at which the XRD document was found.  
But I believe it doesn't say that.

>
> You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that stops  
> people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least in the  
> openID case that would not work for many people.

A URI can identify anything, and in many cases, you can't tell what it  
identifies merely by looking at it - particularly when the URI is of  
the HTTP variety. In general, it is a bad idea to try.

If the use-case is simply to allow an XRD (LRDD?) processor to know  
that the subject URI is one that indicates the XRD is for a "DNS  
host" (warning: I don't know what the use-case actually is), the XRD  
<Subject> could presumably be extended (with an "anyAttribute") to say  
exactly that, and additionally say that a <Subject type='host'/> URI  
MUST have no path component (or that if there is a path component, it  
must be ignored by the processor if the subject type is 'host'). If  
the Subject "host" might not be a valid URI, you'd need to relax the  
anyURI restriction on Subject to allow that.

- johnk

>
> Regards
> John Bradley
>
>
>
> On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>
>> What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http  
>> resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point  
>> of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com 
>> ".
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...>  
>> wrote:
>> XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The  
>> URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is  
>> described by this XRD.
>>
>> So,
>>
>> <Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>> root http resource in example.com
>> <Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>> root http resource in example.com
>>
>> which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document  
>> describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current  
>> thinking for host-meta is to say something like
>>
>> <Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com
>>
>> where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background,  
>> see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html 
>> and responses.
>>
>> Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people  
>> idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it).  
>> using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dirk.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan  
>> <santrajan@...> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the  
>> OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in  
>> any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).
>> What you are saying is
>> 1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be  
>> the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.
>> 2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's  
>> including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an  
>> immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI  
>> describing the subject of the XRD.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...>  
>> wrote:
>> Santosh,
>>
>> That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.
>>
>> Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.
>>
>> It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email  
>> thread.
>>
>> If you have comments on the XRD spec.
>>
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>
>> You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.
>>
>> Regards
>> John Bradley
>>
>> On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>> The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th  
>> Oct here
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html
>>
>> It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is  
>> not part
>> of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still  
>> doesnt change
>> my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the  
>> effect is
>> still the same for me.
>>
>> You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
>> calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what  
>> you have
>> said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and  
>> ignore the
>> rest.
>>
>>
>> "The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
>> in an XRD."
>>
>> That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0"  
>> <Subject>
>> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Bradley-9 wrote:
>>
>> Hi Santosh,
>>
>> I am having a hard time following your point.
>>
>> This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>
>> There is no <Host>  element in the spec.
>>
>> The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
>> in an XRD.
>>
>> HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.
>>
>> I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract  
>> Subject.
>>
>> ie one that is about the host and not the URI.
>>
>> This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.
>>
>> Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
>> information resources with URI.
>>
>> We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some  
>> options
>> on how they might do that.
>>
>> Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I  
>> don't
>> know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide  
>> someone
>> will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.
>>
>> There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
>> you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
>> the TC.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
>> These
>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>> DOWN
>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>>
>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>> Maybe i am
>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
>> let them
>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>> them, "THE
>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
>> so much.
>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
>> hear from
>> me.
>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
>> this post
>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
>> my
>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>> don't
>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
>> that "I am
>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>> Idiots!!!!
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Santosh Rajan
>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Santosh Rajan
>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html
>>
>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

The XRD may not be controlled by the same individual.

I understand your argument, and I understand LRDD wanting to be able to separate them by having different subjects.

This is a LRDD issue not a XRD issue.   

I personally think they should be separate and use the DNS name of the host dns:example.com where you want a URI for the host as opposed to the page.

However I am not part of the LRDD working group.

I wish you luck.

Regards

John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 8:57 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Now this is exactly the point I am making, that the personal XRD and host meta are the same in the case a domain name also describes a personal resource. In the case of "thread-safe.net" your personal XRD and the host meta are the same. There is no contradiction here. It is only the context in which the resource is looked for that makes a difference.

So if you typed in "thread-safe.net" as your OpenID, the application will simply treat the host meta as your personal XRD. On the other hand if you typed in john@... or thread-safe.net/john, the application will treat the XRD as host meta and look for a URITemplate with Rel="describedby" + MediaType="application/xrd_xml".

The Rel values for your Personal Links and "general" resource Links will not be that same. There will be no overlap or contradictions here. This way we keep the whole concept clean and simple.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:36 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Let me give an example.

thread-safe.net is my openID so my personal XRD describing my relationship to linked resources such as an openID service provider is described there.

I may also have other services on my site that need to have there XRD retrieved via the host-meta XRD.

I don't want my personal XRD to have the link templates for resolving XRD on the site.

I need something else to use for the subject of the host-meta XRD.

Having two XRD with the same subject doesn't seem like a good idea.

LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)

You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least in the openID case that would not work for many people.

Regards

John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com".

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...> wrote:

XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is described by this XRD.

So, 

<Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

<Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of root http resource in example.com

which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current thinking for host-meta is to say something like 

<Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com

where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html and responses.

Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it). using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.

Cheers,

Dirk.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan@...> wrote:

Hi John,

Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use case).

What you are saying is

1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element instead.

2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI describing the subject of the XRD.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...> wrote:

Santosh,

That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.

Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.

It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email thread.

If you have comments on the XRD spec.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.

Regards
John Bradley

On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi John,
The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th Oct here
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html

It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is not part
of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still doesnt change
my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the effect is
still the same for me.

You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the pot
calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what you have
said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and ignore the
rest.

"The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD."

That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0" <Subject>
for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?

John Bradley-9 wrote:

Hi Santosh,

I am having a hard time following your point.

This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html

There is no <Host>  element in the spec.

The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
in an XRD.

HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.

I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract Subject.

ie one that is about the host and not the URI.

This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.

Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
information resources with URI.

We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some options
on how they might do that.

Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I don't
know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide someone
will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.

There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not join
the TC.

John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
These
guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
DOWN
WITHOUT A FIGHT".

Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
Maybe i am
a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
let them
prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
them, "THE
IDENTITY OSCAR".



Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
so much.
By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
hear from
me.
Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
this post
of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
my
first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
don't
argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
<Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
<Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
that "I am
a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
Idiots!!!!

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
--

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html

Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
http://hi.im/santosh

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Bradley-9]

Hi John,

An XRD can describe anything that can be named with a URI.

The issue of trying to name everything with a http: URI is a religious  
one.

If you look at the W3C TAG AWW (http Range 14) there are a number of  
options for naming non information resources with http: URI.

People flagrantly violate AWW all the time,  Yadis discovery is a  
clear violation etc.

It is not the XRI-TC's job to play URI police.

LRDD can use any URI scheme or other valid mechanism to create a  
unique http: URI for a host they like.

I don't know that it is necessarily the processor that needs to change  
it's processing rules but rather the conundrum of trying to name two  
quite different subjects with the same URI.

This is interesting, but it may be a more profitable discussion on the  
LRDD list.

I agree with your points, but the XRI-TC opted not add a special  
attribute to subject.

If people feel strongly that it is required, there is a public comment  
period coming up on XRD.

Regards
John B.


On 2009-10-19, at 9:05 PM, John Kemp wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the  
>> DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)
>
> As I understand it, XRD describes the concept of a subject for the  
> XRD document containing that subject identifier, and says that  
> subjects are identified by URIs.
>
> As an identifier, a URI may be used to identify anything you want.
>
> In some cases (maybe a lot of them ;) the URI-as-identifier is also  
> a URI-as-location-of-a-document. It would be easy for XRD to say  
> that the subject URI MUST mean the URI at which the XRD document was  
> found. But I believe it doesn't say that.
>
>>
>> You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that  
>> stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least  
>> in the openID case that would not work for many people.
>
> A URI can identify anything, and in many cases, you can't tell what  
> it identifies merely by looking at it - particularly when the URI is  
> of the HTTP variety. In general, it is a bad idea to try.
>
> If the use-case is simply to allow an XRD (LRDD?) processor to know  
> that the subject URI is one that indicates the XRD is for a "DNS  
> host" (warning: I don't know what the use-case actually is), the XRD  
> <Subject> could presumably be extended (with an "anyAttribute") to  
> say exactly that, and additionally say that a <Subject type='host'/>  
> URI MUST have no path component (or that if there is a path  
> component, it must be ignored by the processor if the subject type  
> is 'host'). If the Subject "host" might not be a valid URI, you'd  
> need to relax the anyURI restriction on Subject to allow that.
>
> - johnk
>
>>
>> Regards
>> John Bradley
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>>> What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http  
>>> resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point  
>>> of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com 
>>> ".
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@...>  
>>> wrote:
>>> XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The  
>>> URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is  
>>> described by this XRD.
>>>
>>> So,
>>>
>>> <Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>> root http resource in example.com
>>> <Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>> root http resource in example.com
>>>
>>> which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document  
>>> describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current  
>>> thinking for host-meta is to say something like
>>>
>>> <Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com
>>>
>>> where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some  
>>> background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html 
>>>  and responses.
>>>
>>> Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people  
>>> idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it).  
>>> using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dirk.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan  
>>> <santrajan@...> wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>> Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the  
>>> OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And  
>>> in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use  
>>> case).
>>> What you are saying is
>>> 1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will  
>>> be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element  
>>> instead.
>>> 2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's  
>>> including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an  
>>> immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI  
>>> describing the subject of the XRD.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...>  
>>> wrote:
>>> Santosh,
>>>
>>> That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.
>>>
>>> Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.
>>>
>>> It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email  
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> If you have comments on the XRD spec.
>>>
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>
>>> You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> John Bradley
>>>
>>> On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>> The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th  
>>> Oct here
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html
>>>
>>> It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is  
>>> not part
>>> of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still  
>>> doesnt change
>>> my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the  
>>> effect is
>>> still the same for me.
>>>
>>> You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the  
>>> pot
>>> calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what  
>>> you have
>>> said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and  
>>> ignore the
>>> rest.
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0  
>>> or 1
>>> in an XRD."
>>>
>>> That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0"  
>>> <Subject>
>>> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Bradley-9 wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Santosh,
>>>
>>> I am having a hard time following your point.
>>>
>>> This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>
>>> There is no <Host>  element in the spec.
>>>
>>> The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
>>> in an XRD.
>>>
>>> HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.
>>>
>>> I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract  
>>> Subject.
>>>
>>> ie one that is about the host and not the URI.
>>>
>>> This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.
>>>
>>> Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
>>> information resources with URI.
>>>
>>> We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some  
>>> options
>>> on how they might do that.
>>>
>>> Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I  
>>> don't
>>> know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide  
>>> someone
>>> will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.
>>>
>>> There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
>>> you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not  
>>> join
>>> the TC.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>>
>>> On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
>>> These
>>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>>> DOWN
>>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>>>
>>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>>> Maybe i am
>>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
>>> let them
>>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>>> them, "THE
>>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
>>> so much.
>>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
>>> hear from
>>> me.
>>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
>>> this post
>>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
>>> my
>>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>>> don't
>>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
>>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
>>> that "I am
>>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>>> Idiots!!!!
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Santosh Rajan
>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Santosh Rajan
>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html
>>>
>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general@...
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

[John Kemp-5]

Hey John,

On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:26 PM, John Bradley wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> An XRD can describe anything that can be named with a URI.
>
> The issue of trying to name everything with a http: URI is a  
> religious one.
>
> If you look at the W3C TAG AWW (http Range 14) there are a number of  
> options for naming non information resources with http: URI.
>
> People flagrantly violate AWW all the time,  Yadis discovery is a  
> clear violation etc.
>
> It is not the XRI-TC's job to play URI police.

Indeed, and in the interests of full disclosure, I will note that I am  
a member of the W3C TAG, and am well-aware of the "religious issues"  
around the use of HTTP URIs. I am not representing the TAG in this  
discussion, FWIW.

>
> LRDD can use any URI scheme or other valid mechanism to create a  
> unique http: URI for a host they like.
>
> I don't know that it is necessarily the processor that needs to  
> change it's processing rules but rather the conundrum of trying to  
> name two quite different subjects with the same URI.
>
> This is interesting, but it may be a more profitable discussion on  
> the LRDD list.
>
> I agree with your points, but the XRI-TC opted not add a special  
> attribute to subject.
>
> If people feel strongly that it is required, there is a public  
> comment period coming up on XRD.

I would respectfully suggest that people look at a way of saying that  
an "XRD Subject" is also a "DNS host", without resorting to modifying  
the URI which identifies the XRD subject (or the identifier for the  
DNS host). Look at this as a problem in defining equivalence between  
two concepts which each have their own identifier.

Regards,

- johnk

>
> Regards
> John B.
>
>
> On 2009-10-19, at 9:05 PM, John Kemp wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the  
>>> DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)
>>
>> As I understand it, XRD describes the concept of a subject for the  
>> XRD document containing that subject identifier, and says that  
>> subjects are identified by URIs.
>>
>> As an identifier, a URI may be used to identify anything you want.
>>
>> In some cases (maybe a lot of them ;) the URI-as-identifier is also  
>> a URI-as-location-of-a-document. It would be easy for XRD to say  
>> that the subject URI MUST mean the URI at which the XRD document  
>> was found. But I believe it doesn't say that.
>>
>>>
>>> You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that  
>>> stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least  
>>> in the openID case that would not work for many people.
>>
>> A URI can identify anything, and in many cases, you can't tell what  
>> it identifies merely by looking at it - particularly when the URI  
>> is of the HTTP variety. In general, it is a bad idea to try.
>>
>> If the use-case is simply to allow an XRD (LRDD?) processor to know  
>> that the subject URI is one that indicates the XRD is for a "DNS  
>> host" (warning: I don't know what the use-case actually is), the  
>> XRD <Subject> could presumably be extended (with an "anyAttribute")  
>> to say exactly that, and additionally say that a <Subject  
>> type='host'/> URI MUST have no path component (or that if there is  
>> a path component, it must be ignored by the processor if the  
>> subject type is 'host'). If the Subject "host" might not be a valid  
>> URI, you'd need to relax the anyURI restriction on Subject to allow  
>> that.
>>
>> - johnk
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> John Bradley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http  
>>>> resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point  
>>>> of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com 
>>>> ".
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz  
>>>> <balfanz@...> wrote:
>>>> XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The  
>>>> URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is  
>>>> described by this XRD.
>>>>
>>>> So,
>>>>
>>>> <Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>>> root http resource in example.com
>>>> <Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>>> root http resource in example.com
>>>>
>>>> which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document  
>>>> describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current  
>>>> thinking for host-meta is to say something like
>>>>
>>>> <Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com
>>>>
>>>> where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some  
>>>> background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html 
>>>>  and responses.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people  
>>>> idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it).  
>>>> using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Dirk.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan  
>>>> <santrajan@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi John,
>>>> Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the  
>>>> OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And  
>>>> in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use  
>>>> case).
>>>> What you are saying is
>>>> 1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will  
>>>> be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element  
>>>> instead.
>>>> 2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's  
>>>> including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an  
>>>> immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI  
>>>> describing the subject of the XRD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@...>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Santosh,
>>>>
>>>> That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link>  
>>>> elements.
>>>>
>>>> Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email  
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> If you have comments on the XRD spec.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> John Bradley
>>>>
>>>> On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>> The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on  
>>>> 15th Oct here
>>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html
>>>>
>>>> It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it  
>>>> is not part
>>>> of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still  
>>>> doesnt change
>>>> my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the  
>>>> effect is
>>>> still the same for me.
>>>>
>>>> You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the  
>>>> pot
>>>> calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow  
>>>> what you have
>>>> said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and  
>>>> ignore the
>>>> rest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0  
>>>> or 1
>>>> in an XRD."
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0"  
>>>> <Subject>
>>>> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Bradley-9 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Santosh,
>>>>
>>>> I am having a hard time following your point.
>>>>
>>>> This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>>
>>>> There is no <Host>  element in the spec.
>>>>
>>>> The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0  
>>>> or 1
>>>> in an XRD.
>>>>
>>>> HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.
>>>>
>>>> I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract  
>>>> Subject.
>>>>
>>>> ie one that is about the host and not the URI.
>>>>
>>>> This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.
>>>>
>>>> Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
>>>> information resources with URI.
>>>>
>>>> We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some  
>>>> options
>>>> on how they might do that.
>>>>
>>>> Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I  
>>>> don't
>>>> know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide  
>>>> someone
>>>> will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
>>>> you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not  
>>>> join
>>>> the TC.
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD  
>>>> forums.
>>>> These
>>>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>>>> DOWN
>>>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>>>>
>>>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>>>> Maybe i am
>>>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
>>>> let them
>>>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>>>> them, "THE
>>>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
>>>> so much.
>>>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
>>>> hear from
>>>> me.
>>>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
>>>> this post
>>>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>>>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start  
>>>> with
>>>> my
>>>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>>>> don't
>>>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with  
>>>> me.
>>>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>>>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>>>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
>>>> that "I am
>>>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>>>> Idiots!!!!
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Santosh Rajan
>>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
>>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general@...
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general@...
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Santosh Rajan
>>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html
>>>>
>>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general@...
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general@...
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general@...
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general