[OpenID] Calling for Rejecting webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd

[Santosh Rajan]

Ah, I agree, semantic problem here. It wasn't a question, it was a point I
was making which I will rephrase here.

If you wan't to Reject the <Subject> of an XRD (includes host-meta), you
need to prove that the XRD is "NOT a URI Addressable document".

Simply making a statement to that effect is not enough.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at google.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 1, 2009, John Panzer <jpanzer at acm.org> wrote:
> > Okay -- just assume I'm stupid about this:  What's the question?
> >
>
>
> +1
>
> I also got lost in the variuos threads. Can you state concisely your
> objection? It's not clear from your first message.
>
> Dirk
>
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > John,If you want we can leave out my reference to the other threads. In
> this thread I am only posing one question which I think should be clear to
> everyone.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Santosh,
> >
> > To tell you the truth, I did not understand your prior objections (and
> > the discussion has morphed a lot so it's difficult to understand the
> > current state of your objections).  I also don't understand your
> > assertion below "if you want to buy..." and how it connects to your
> > prior objections.  Note that I'm not asserting that your objections are
> > wrong, just that I don't understand them.  I suspect there are lot of
> > people in the same boat as I am.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Santosh Rajan wrote:
> > I am calling for the rejection of webfinger,
> > host-meta, lrdd, xrd, lock, stock and barrel. There are many reasons
> > for this. If you have read previous posts at the Openid forum you will
> > understand that there are too many reasons for this. Just read the last
> > few threads on this forum and you will know why.
> >
> >
> >   Here I want to
> > start the discussion on this rejection with the definition of a
> > "Resource".
> >
> >
> >   "A
> > URI-addressable network document or service".
> >
> >
> >   So If you want to
> > buy the current story given by the webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd
> > folk, they need to prove that an XRD is NOT "URI addressable", if they
> > want to ignore the Subject of the XRD. This also applies to host-meta.
> >
> >
> >   So I would like
> > to hear from the supporters of webfinger, host-meta, lrdd, xrd.
> >
> >
> >   This is not to
> > suggest that I am not a supporter of all these specs. On the contrary I
> > do support these specs provided we can come with a simpler spec for 1.0
> > based on the fundamental arguments I have been postulating on this
> > forum in the last week or so.
> >
> >
> >   --
> >   http://hi.im/santosh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://hi.im/santosh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091102/e3d16531/attachment-0003.htm>