[OpenID] host-meta and "acct:"

Sat Nov 7 09:39:37 UTC 2009

Quoting from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-01

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-01>

"To address this, this memo proposes a single (and hopefully last)
   "well-known location", /host-meta, which acts as a directory to the
   interesting metadata about a particular authority."

As you can see above the host-meta is "a directory to the meta-data on a
host".
And also this "directory" aka host-meta is also URI addressable. eg.
http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta.

Now can some one please explain to me how a URI addressable Resource CANNOT
have a URI Subject?

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer at acm.org> wrote:

> We have one compelling use case already where the existing <Subject>
> doesn't work: host-meta is "about" a host, and there is no URI scheme to
> represent Hosts (see IIW notes at
> https://docs.google.com/a/johnpanzer.com/Doc?docid=0AZojn6fzr_tFZGRqNjhzcXZfOWY1cXA3emY5&hl=enfor alternatives considered). The simplest thing that anyone can come up
> with for this use case that doesn't run into tripwires or pitfalls is a
> separate element, <hm:Host>, that contains a hostname.
>
> Of course this element is only going to be recognized by host-meta-aware
> processors.  And that's fine, because this is only valid for host-meta.  But
> if XRD were required to have <Subject>, host-meta would be required to
> define some "dummy" Subject to stick in there and it would be stupid.
>
> Now multiply this by N, where N is the number of things that may want to
> leverage XRD.  I believe the least bad solution is to leave the XML
> <Subject> element optional, while making it clear that there _is_ a
> conceptual subject for every XRD.
>
> (I really wish we had left atom:id as a SHOULD instead of a MUST in Atom.
>  We immediately turned around and discovered a use case where a required
> atom:id causes problems and confusion -- creating new Atom entries via
> POST.)
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>
>> Santosh,
>>
>> It is too bad that you couldn't make IIW.  I suspect we could have made
>> better progress on understanding in person rather than iterating on the
>> list.
>>
>> Yes it is better to air these issues before specs are finalized.
>>
>> At least in OASIS  that is why all of the TC work is done in public and we
>> have strict rules about public review periods and and answering all formal
>> feedback before a spec can go to a final vote of all the OASIS members.
>>
>> I am personally trying to devote more time to the IETF specs like
>> WebFinger and LARDD that are profiling XRD so that I can better understand
>> there reasons for wanting to use elements other than Subject.
>>
>> While I am currently of the opinion that Subject should not be required in
>> the XRD spec, that shouldn't be taken that I don't have strong opinions
>> about what happens in the profiles.
>>
>> They are however different discussions, and I need to be mindful of what
>> hat I am wearing in what discussion.
>>
>> Regards
>> John Bradley
>>
>> On 2009-11-06, at 7:54 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>> Hey John,
>> I was just kidding Shade about the "+1". You can give any no of +1's to
>> Shade and I couldn't agree with you more. I know you guys are working hard
>> on this,and I have great respect for the work you are doing.
>> It is just that I have a strong feeling that something has gone wrong
>> somewhere. Things just don't look right to me. Especially when it comes to
>> the "Subject" Element.
>> Looking a the whole thing positively, it is better that these kinds of
>> arguments happen at this stage (draft stage) than after the 1.0 release. I
>> am sure you will agree with me on this.
>> Thanks
>> Santosh
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:11 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I could give Shade another +1.
>>>
>>> I do think that he is clearly articulating the perspective of a majority
>>> of people who donate there time to create specs like XRD.
>>>
>>> Some have said that our attempt to make XRDS too specific to the
>>> requirements of XRI caused it to fork into XRDS-Simple.
>>>
>>> We are trying to learn from our past, along with the people who forked
>>> XRD for legitimate reasons to accommodate there use case.
>>>
>>> We are attempting to produce a spec that can accommodate new things like
>>> WebFinger without causing a fork in XRD every time  someone comes up with a
>>> new idea they want to try out.
>>>
>>>  Profiles of XRD  will live or die based on there community adoption.
>>>
>>> Profiles of XRD are free to make Subject required.  Profiles of XRD can
>>> define there own namespaces and extend XRD as they like.
>>>
>>> You can make formal comments through the OASIS feedback process if you
>>> have a problem with that.
>>>
>>> We will consider all feedback before XRD is finalized.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> John Bradley
>>> On 2009-11-06, at 7:19 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hehe Shade, you are not going to get a "+1" for this one. Somebody did
>>> give you one for an earlier post!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM, SitG Admin <
>>> sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3) XRD with <Host> instead of <Subject>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hypothetical, but plausible, scenario:
>>>>
>>>> A developer realizes they need to indicate something different from
>>>> Subject, but that they may need Subject later on. To avoid that future
>>>> conflict (where they would find themselves forced to declare ActualSubject
>>>> instead of just using Subject!), they use Host instead. Communicating this
>>>> to the 3rd parties they deal with, and getting them to modify their own code
>>>> to interop, is up to the developer :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  4) Someone might come along and decide lets have <Title> instead of
>>>>> <Subject>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They won't get to make a unilateral decision, though. If they can't
>>>> present compelling reasons why anyone ought to switch from using Subject to
>>>> using Title, they'll probably be ignored ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  5) Anyone can have anything else instead of <Subject>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If they want to, sure. How effective it is may depend on how many others
>>>> they can get to accomodate their approach - and it may depend on how many
>>>> others *don't*. Remember that security through obscurity actually *works*,
>>>> in some cases; if they have an undocumented, hexadeximal-encoded, (weakly)
>>>> encrypted Subject line labeled as another field, 99% of 3rd parties (having
>>>> no reason to even *attempt* to figure out what Subject line IF ANY there is)
>>>> will not pursue that any further.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Is this your idea of future compatibility?
>>>>> Why is it so difficult for people to see that this whole thing is
>>>>> leading to a mess?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're blinded by this whole idea of "majority consensus".
>>>>
>>>> When you think that the majority's interests are in the actual
>>>> *usefulness* of each spec, as defined by how many 3rd parties can be
>>>> persuaded to practice the same methods (it's all about interoperability),
>>>> your self-interest becomes self-limiting (it's all about enlightened
>>>> self-interest): you don't want to exert too MUCH influence, making something
>>>> perfect for YOU, because then it'll be too much trouble for everyone *else*
>>>> (the Way of D'Shai is all about *balance*). The more accepting you can be of
>>>> those who are different from you (it's all about tolerance), the more likely
>>>> you are to receive cooperation instead of competition (Microsoft called this
>>>> "Embrace and Extend"; pay it forward).
>>>>
>>>> -Shade
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>

-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091107/47944bf9/attachment-0001.htm>