[OpenID] Open Challenge to webfinger and XRD
John Kemp
john at jkemp.net
Tue Oct 20 00:45:14 UTC 2009
Hey John,
On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:26 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, and in the interests of full disclosure, I will note that I am
a member of the W3C TAG, and am well-aware of the "religious issues"
around the use of HTTP URIs. I am not representing the TAG in this
discussion, FWIW.
>
> 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.
I would respectfully suggest that people look at a way of saying that
an "XRD Subject" is also a "DNS host", without resorting to modifying
the URI which identifies the XRD subject (or the identifier for the
DNS host). Look at this as a problem in defining equivalence between
two concepts which each have their own identifier.
Regards,
- johnk
>
> 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
>>
>
More information about the general
mailing list