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

Fri Nov 13 02:04:07 UTC 2009

You didn't offer a basis for the rejection call. Here are some examples.

The openid movement has no formal wg studying the applicability of xrd or
lrdd as a yadis replacement. The technical and political work is open but is
not open to everyone in practice. It an expert group model, not a community
model.

It's derived from xri, which was a miserable failure in the web. Folks
drawing from xri and xrd engineering axioms (vs w3c axioms) cannot be
trusted twice.

Xrd in XML achieves little that could not be acheived  with an rdf file or
even a HTML file

if I'm going to buy into powder, do I also want to bother with xrd?

It's all tied to this vendor push to sell cloud offloading, and is too
closely tied to marchiteture.

It's all tied to the adoption of uci, which gartner counsels clients to
avoid for 5+ years (don't bother today to become an rp , except to
experiment)

Santosh Rajan wrote:
> 
> I don't know why you have dug up an old thread now. We have come a long
> way
> in nine days.
> And I hope this helps.
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00014.html
> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00014.html>
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at google.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Calling-for-Rejecting-webfinger%2C-host-meta%2C-lrdd%2C-xrd-tp26151584p26328723.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.