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

[Dirk Balfanz]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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".
>

Still not quite sure what you mean. Are you talking about rejecting a
<Subject> during resource resolution? Or are you talking about the fact that
a <Subject> is optional in an XRD? Or are you talking about the fact that an
XRD must be about a URI-addressable resource?

If it's the latter, I trust this helped:
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019500.html

Dirk.


> 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/20091109/52645e18/attachment-0001.htm>