[OpenID] Open Challenge to webfinger and XRD
John Bradley
ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com
Tue Oct 20 01:50:03 UTC 2009
John
I think the goal is to be able to attach XRD meta-data to any http
information-resource.
It presents a problem if you attempt to overload a single URI to
describe both a information and non-information resource.
My advice to LRDD has been to simply pick a different URI for what is
essentially a non-information resource. They can add a fragment or
a number of other things. 303 redirects don't work as well for this
use case.
My guess is if we were to ask some on the TAG , we would get the
advice not to get hung up on implied semantics of the URI when using
it as a name. There is no clear reason that http://example.com is a
better than http://example.com/#host-meta as a name for something that
is a organizational concept rather than a serialisable representation.
I think LRDD will eventually do something reasonable.
However the XRI-TC has yet to be convinced that encouraging people to
name two different things with the same name is a good idea.
If you have ideas on the proper W3C friendly way to name the subject
of the meta-data for all the protocols relating to a DNS name, I am
quite interested in your opinion.
I personally believe that URI fragments in XRD <Subjects> are the best
way to create XRD meta-data for non-information resources. It
maintains consistency with other sem-web protocols like POWDER.
One could argue that an openID identifier for me is also properly a
non-information resource and should be http://thread-safe.net/#1234 to
indicate that the subject of the meta-data is the person and not the
web page.
That however is a different topic. I have never gotten very far
arguing against overloading URI.
Regards
John B.
On 2009-10-19, at 9:45 PM, John Kemp wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
-------------- 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/20091019/5baa0f47/attachment.bin>
More information about the general
mailing list