[OpenID] host-meta and "acct:"

Sat Nov 7 13:23:25 UTC 2009

The problem is that there is no clear definition of what an XRD is.

My definition for a XRD; A XML Resource Descriptor that can resolved by a
URI.

The <Subject> of the XRD is the URI used to resolve it. This is consistent
with all the use cases I have seen so far. It also makes sense for a URI
Identifier to resolve to its descriptor.

If we agree on the two definitions above then it is clear that the <Subject>
of the host-meta is the URI used to resolve it. eg.
<Subject>http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta</Subject>

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM, John Kemp <john at jkemp.net> wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:42 AM, John Panzer 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=en for
>> 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.
>>
>
> Indeed, and that is a solution to the problem of how to represent a non (or
> not easily)-URI-addressable thing in an element which accepts only URIs.
>
> One alternative solution would be to:
>
> i) Allow both URI and non-URI content in the Subject XML element (define
> Subject to be a string, and then restrict it in various profiles of XRD)
> ii) Allow the Subject element to carry a semantic hint to those profiling
> XRD as to which type of Subject is 'meant' by the content of the element.
>
> Another solution would be to accept that the URI in the Subject is ONLY an
> identifier, and not a locator (of the Subject resource itself anyway). A
> strong hint there would be to use URNs (such as tag: [1]) instead of HTTP
> URIs. Such URIs can define their own resolution mechanisms, independent of
> the naming scheme.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think having an optional Subject is a pragmatic
> solution. I just think it de-values XRD itself to suggest that an optional
> Subject is an appropriate extension point, since (I suspect) the concept of
> Subject is shared by all users of XRD whether or not the element itself
> appears in the document.
>
> - johnk
>
> [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4151.html
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091107/85376cb5/attachment.htm>