[OpenID] Summarizing my grouse with XRD

[Santosh Rajan]

When I spoke about cacheing in point no (2) I clearly mentioned 'Applications
"IN THE KNOW OF XRD's"'. So I am talking cacheing about of XRD's by
applications who are aware of XRD's, which is more than the general cacheing
of XRD's, like any other file you are talking about. And if i am still not
clear to you, what I am suggesting is that XRD's will be used as something
like hcard's, and they will cache'd in that context.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com> wrote:

> No, there are no differences. Caching by the Subject is the wrong
> thing. If you are starting the discovery from a resource different
> from the Subject, then caching by the Subject will not actually save
> you network fetches. Anyway, that is not how HTTP caching works,
> caching is based on where you got the resource from, not on some clue
> embedded in the document.
>
> Basically, for this to work with existing cache infrastructure, cache
> should work at the HTTP layer, and validation or trust reasoning be
> performed at a higher (XRD-knowledgeable) level.
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Comparing robots.txt with an XRD is like comparing "apples with oranges".
> > Can you do better than that? Cacheing robots.txt is not the same as
> cacheing
> > an XRD. I will explain.
> > If my browser wants to cache all my XRD's. This is a real possibility. I
> may
> > have XRD's at Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and "my own" host. The only way
> you
> > can differentiate between all these XRD's is if the XRD;'s have a
> <Subject>.
> >
> --
> --Breno
>
> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091021/b19a6938/attachment.htm>