[OpenID] Open Challenge to webfinger and XRD

Tue Oct 20 00:26:28 UTC 2009

Hi John,

An XRD can describe anything that can be named with a URI.

The issue of trying to name everything with a http: URI is a religious  
one.

If you look at the W3C TAG AWW (http Range 14) there are a number of  
options for naming non information resources with http: URI.

People flagrantly violate AWW all the time,  Yadis discovery is a  
clear violation etc.

It is not the XRI-TC's job to play URI police.

LRDD can use any URI scheme or other valid mechanism to create a  
unique http: URI for a host they like.

I don't know that it is necessarily the processor that needs to change  
it's processing rules but rather the conundrum of trying to name two  
quite different subjects with the same URI.

This is interesting, but it may be a more profitable discussion on the  
LRDD list.

I agree with your points, but the XRI-TC opted not add a special  
attribute to subject.

If people feel strongly that it is required, there is a public comment  
period coming up on XRD.

Regards
John B.

On 2009-10-19, at 9:05 PM, John Kemp wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> LRDD is looking for a way to indicate that the XRD applies to the  
>> DNS host as a whole rather than the URI. (For email, xmpp etc)
>
> As I understand it, XRD describes the concept of a subject for the  
> XRD document containing that subject identifier, and says that  
> subjects are identified by URIs.
>
> As an identifier, a URI may be used to identify anything you want.
>
> In some cases (maybe a lot of them ;) the URI-as-identifier is also  
> a URI-as-location-of-a-document. It would be easy for XRD to say  
> that the subject URI MUST mean the URI at which the XRD document was  
> found. But I believe it doesn't say that.
>
>>
>> You could make all http:// URL with no path "Special" but that  
>> stops people from using XRD to describe the URL itself.  At least  
>> in the openID case that would not work for many people.
>
> A URI can identify anything, and in many cases, you can't tell what  
> it identifies merely by looking at it - particularly when the URI is  
> of the HTTP variety. In general, it is a bad idea to try.
>
> If the use-case is simply to allow an XRD (LRDD?) processor to know  
> that the subject URI is one that indicates the XRD is for a "DNS  
> host" (warning: I don't know what the use-case actually is), the XRD  
> <Subject> could presumably be extended (with an "anyAttribute") to  
> say exactly that, and additionally say that a <Subject type='host'/>  
> URI MUST have no path component (or that if there is a path  
> component, it must be ignored by the processor if the subject type  
> is 'host'). If the Subject "host" might not be a valid URI, you'd  
> need to relax the anyURI restriction on Subject to allow that.
>
> - johnk
>
>>
>> Regards
>> John Bradley
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2009-10-19, at 7:43 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>>> What is the difference between "describing meta data of root http  
>>> resource" and "describing meta data of the host" from a DNS point  
>>> of view? None. They are the same. It can be described by a URI. "http://example.com 
>>> ".
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at google.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>> XRD prescribes an (optional) Subject element, which is a URI. The  
>>> URI in the Subject element is the URI of the resource that is  
>>> described by this XRD.
>>>
>>> So,
>>>
>>> <Subject>http://example.com</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>> root http resource in example.com
>>> <Subject>http://example.com/</Subject> // describes meta data of  
>>> root http resource in example.com
>>>
>>> which leaves us with the question of how to say "this document  
>>> describes meta-data data for the host example.com". The current  
>>> thinking for host-meta is to say something like
>>>
>>> <Host>example.com</Host> // describes meta-data of host example.com
>>>
>>> where the Host element is a string, not a URI. For some  
>>> background, see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200908/msg00127.html 
>>>  and responses.
>>>
>>> Regarding civility: all-caps is not very polite. calling people  
>>> idiots is not very polite (well, I guess you merely implied it).  
>>> using lots of exclamation marks is not very polite.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dirk.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Santosh Rajan  
>>> <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>> Let me get this strait here. I am unable to participate in the  
>>> OASIS discussions because I haven't figured the process yet. And  
>>> in any case all this has a bearing on OpenID, (it is the no 1 use  
>>> case).
>>> What you are saying is
>>> 1) The host-meta will (MUST) have a <Subject> Element which will  
>>> be the domain URL of the host. There will be no <Host> element  
>>> instead.
>>> 2) (This is not something you have said explicitly) . All XRD's  
>>> including host-meta "MUST" have "1" <Subject> element as an  
>>> immediate child element of the XRD Root whose value is a URI  
>>> describing the subject of the XRD.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>> Santosh,
>>>
>>> That was a thread on the use of signing elements in <Link> elements.
>>>
>>> Dirk's use of <Host> in his example XRD is not valid XRD syntax.
>>>
>>> It wasn't commented on because it was not the topic of the email  
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> If you have comments on the XRD spec.
>>>
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>
>>> You are welcome to submit them through the formal process.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> John Bradley
>>>
>>> On 2009-10-19, at 5:51 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>> The last time I saw an example of an XRD host-meta is here on 15th  
>>> Oct here
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200910/msg00055.html
>>>
>>> It has a <Host> instead of <Subject>. If you are saying that it is  
>>> not part
>>> of the XRD spec and it is part of the host-meta spec, it still  
>>> doesnt change
>>> my argument. As an end-user of the the discovery mechanism the  
>>> effect is
>>> still the same for me.
>>>
>>> You say you have a hard time following me! Isn't it a case of the  
>>> pot
>>> calling the kettle black? How many people are going to follow what  
>>> you have
>>> said bellow. I will only quote one sentence you have written and  
>>> ignore the
>>> rest.
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0  
>>> or 1
>>> in an XRD."
>>>
>>> That is exactly what you said. Now tell me how can there be a "0"  
>>> <Subject>
>>> for an XRD. What meaning does an XRD have with "0" <Subject>?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Bradley-9 wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Santosh,
>>>
>>> I am having a hard time following your point.
>>>
>>> This is the current draft of the XRD spec.
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34724/xrd-1.0-wd09.html
>>>
>>> There is no <Host>  element in the spec.
>>>
>>> The Subject of a XRD is the <Subject> of the XRD there can be 0 or 1
>>> in an XRD.
>>>
>>> HostMeta is a spec that uses the OASIS XRD spec.
>>>
>>> I know that they want to have what is essentially an abstract  
>>> Subject.
>>>
>>> ie one that is about the host and not the URI.
>>>
>>> This is a URL problem and not an XRI one.
>>>
>>> Any number of wars have been fought over how to represent non-
>>> information resources with URI.
>>>
>>> We did give the group working on host-meta as a itef spec some  
>>> options
>>> on how they might do that.
>>>
>>> Using the DNS scheme or a URI fragment are all possibilities.  I  
>>> don't
>>> know if they have come to a conclusion.   Whatever they decide  
>>> someone
>>> will be unhappy if history is anything to go by on this topic.
>>>
>>> There is a public review period for XRD coming up and a process for
>>> you to make formal submissions if you want to have input but not  
>>> join
>>> the TC.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>>
>>> On 2009-10-19, at 3:27 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is an Open Challenge i am sending to the webfinger, XRD forums.
>>> These
>>> guys really think I am an Idiot. "Maybe I am". "BUT I AM NOT GOING
>>> DOWN
>>> WITHOUT A FIGHT".
>>>
>>> Really, I really don't know. Let us hear the arguments they give.
>>> Maybe i am
>>> a brainless stupid, that is why i feel all of them are hollow. But
>>> let them
>>> prove I am stupid. "IF THEY CAN", IF they can, we will hand it to
>>> them, "THE
>>> IDENTITY OSCAR".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,I know you guys don't like to hear from me. I have been told
>>> so much.
>>> By your moderators. That people on this forum are not "Happy" to
>>> hear from
>>> me.
>>> Like it or "NOT" you are going to hear from me. I am not sure if
>>> this post
>>> of mine will be allowed to be published. But let us see.
>>> I have so many grouses with "XRD" and today I am going to start with
>>> my
>>> first grouse. Since WebFinger by definition is going to follow XRD,
>>> don't
>>> argue with me about webfinger. Lets talk about XRD to start with me.
>>> I am throwing a challenge to all the XRD guys. Prove to me that the
>>> <Subject> of an XRD host-meta document has to be <Host> instead of
>>> <Subject>. If you "smart" guys can prove this to me, I will agree
>>> that "I am
>>> a complete Idiot". If "NOT" all of you web fingerer's and XRD's are
>>> Idiots!!!!
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Santosh Rajan
>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>> -- 
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25963216.html
>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Santosh Rajan
>>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>> -- 
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Open-Challenge-to-webfinger-and-XRD-tp25963216p25965303.html
>>>
>>> Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091019/7849ddf5/attachment.bin>