[OpenID] Comment on new Draft host-meta

[Santosh Rajan]

Quoting from

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hammer-hostmeta-01.txt

"host-meta document SHOULD NOT include the 'Subject' or 'Alias' XRD
   elements since these elements require a valid URI to identify the
   resource being described, which is not available for the host-meta
   scope."


Yet you have taken the very same URI's, that should have been in the Subject
and Alias fields to begin with, split them into scheme and authority, stuck
them into a new "Scope" element and embelished it with a new namespace to
give it more legitimacy. Logically i dont see any difference from using the
Subject and Alias.


"not available for the host-meta scope" is very different from "not
available for the host-meta". You cannot justify ignoring the Subject of the
XRD, based on its "Scope". The Subject of an XRD is about the XRD itself and
not its scope.


The host-meta is not some "Thing" that resides in somebody's backyard, so
that it cannot have a URI to identify it. As for differentiating the
host-meta from the actual URL resource, haven't we already done it with the
".well-known" path? There is no valid justification to ignore the Subject
here.


As for your use of "authority", i see a couple of problems using it.
1) "authority" has a "userinfo" part that will break your usage of it in
this context.
2) URN's do not have a authority part. scheme="acct", authority="yahoo.com"
is meaning less.

-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091024/b03ac4ed/attachment.htm>